eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     


[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed

Patrick Arnesen (VA7PSA) on August 2, 2006
View comments about this article!


Defining an Open Standard for Next-Generation Amateur Radio Hardware

It's time for amateurs to take control of the future of amateur radio technology. If we don't then our hobby probably faces extinction sometime in the mid to late 21st century. Cellphones today are already making us look bad. They hop frequencies, use spectrum efficiently, transmit video & pictures, send text-messages and even browse the web. Imagine where they'll be in 10 years! But we're the radio geeks. We should to be able to do things with our radios that would make the average cell phone user's jaw drop! If we can wow people with our technology and present them with modern technical challenges then we have a good chance of attracting new members into the hobby in great numbers. The way to do this is to collaboratively define an open standard for the next generation of amateur radio hardware. As a software developer I've seen how powerful and successful open standards can be.

I've been thinking about the future of VHF/UHF+ HAM radio for a while now. The dominant modulation today is FM. Don't get me wrong, FM is great. Most often FM signals come in very clearly with little distortion. However, it's nothing but audio. With all power of digital technology today, its time to begin planning the next generation of VHF/UHF+ radio.

Right now ICOM is working hard to market DSTAR, which is a sophisticated digital radio standard. It has many advantages, such as being narrow enough to fit in between standard VHF FM channels. I support the effort to create new amateur digital modulation standards. However, I'm concerned about the hardware. ICOM is pushing DSTAR in order to sell DSTAR equipped radios. These radios will support analog and DSTAR communications, but no other form of modulation. Once the hardware becomes standard it will be nearly impossible for amateurs to switch to different forms of digital modulation. We risk being locked in to a single digital standard for the next 20 years.

My argument is that we should not allow ourselves to be pushed into a single digital modulation standard. This would be an enormous impedance to experimentation and progress at a time when our hobby really needs it. It would be much better to take advantage software defined radio technology, mated with the advanced kind of hardware and batter-power we can expect in 5 year's time, to produce a software defined VHF/UHF hand held & mobile radio hardware standard. Such a radio could be easily reprogrammed to handle nearly any sort of modulation (digital or analog). You could buy a radio once and re-use it for nearly anything!

To be clear, I'm not proposing any particular standard for digital modulation. I'm talking about defining a hardware standard for next-generation software defined radios so that an amateur could define a new modulation in software that could be uploaded and installed on any next-generation amateur radio. Such a standard would open the door to a renaissance of experimentation and creativity, but it would never come from an effort lead by hardware manufacturers. It must be demanded (and largely designed) by the amateur radio community itself, spearheaded by a collaborative effort among federal clubs such as the ARRL, JARL, the RAC and the RSGB.

Most of us would never actually have to code a software plug-in, but we would be able to easily download software from the Internet and install it in our radios. So how big a jump in capability am I talking about? With software-defined UHF/VHF radios and some innovative software developed along open-source principles, we could do all of the following and more:

  1. Be able to upload arbitrary new digital modulations to your radio from our computers.

    1. The radio should be able to store and use an arbitrary number of software-defined digital modulations.

    2. Today your radio's a TV receiver, tomorrow it's a model airplane controller. Next week, it's whatever you want it to be!

    3. This is where the standard for a new radio would be really important. By creating a hardware standard for a software-defined amateur radio, amateurs can develop a digital modulation as open-source software and be confident that it will run on all amateur radios.

  2. Enjoy full-duplex audio with text sub-carriers & automatic callsign identification

    1. If 3 people speak at once, you can hear them all as if they're in the same room as you

  3. Remote-Control anything.

  4. Easily adapt to evolving emergency communications demands. With a software-defined radio we'll always be able to adopt any digital standard governments need us to.

  5. Tap into existing digital standards such as WIFI & digital TV

  6. Build Repeaters that provide:

    1. voice and text chat-rooms

      1. The repeater should be able to host multiple conversations at once, some 1-to-1, some many-to-many. This would be a big advantage over cell phones and would be exciting to young people. Cell-phones don't do many-to-many communications very well at all.

    2. The ability to "phone" someone by their callsign. Enter their callsign and their radio "rings". Otherwise it's silent (unless you're actively using it of course)

    3. Internet-based routing between repeaters so that radios can roam like cell-phones and still be reached.

  7. Enhanced net-control.

    1. See everyone on frequency at a single glance.

    2. Automated net round-robins. Speak your contribution and your radio will buffer it, to be automatically transmitted when your turn comes.

  8. Send files on a sub-carrier during a conversation:

    1. "Take a look at these pictures of my grandkids!"

  9. Radios that can scan a chunk of radio spectrum & list the signals found within, including modulation types. Select the desired signal and the radio automatically demodulates & plays/displays it for you.

  10. Built in video-cameras for sharing pictures & video chat.

    1. Once again the video interface drivers must be standard so that people can write software against them.

  11. Palm-sized touch-screen color LCD screens that can display arbitrary graphical user interfaces, images & small html pages.

  12. USB 2 interfaces for computer-to-radio communications.

  13. Do all this from a device that fits in your pocket

Reclaiming the technological high-ground and reclaiming the ability to meaningfully experiment at the cutting edge is absolutely vital to the continued health and vitality of amateur radio. I believe that a VHF-UHF software defined radio standard will achieve this. Such a standard would open up a whole new world of possibilities for tinkerers and experimenters - and because the results would be open-source software, other hams could instantly benefit from their efforts! I hope that the federal radio clubs will hear this message.

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W0UHF on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Open source projects in software defined radios has already begun. These projects are being started by individuals. The hardware isn't handheld size yet, but to see what is currently going on, check out these projects:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/

http://hpsdr.org/

http://www.flex-radio.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dttsp-linux/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/softrock40/

Amsat's Eagle satellite will be software defined:

http://www.amsat.org/amsat-new/eagle/EaglePedia/index.php/Main_Page

There are lots of exciting open projects going on in Amateur radio now right at the leading edge of technology. Jump on it and be one of the hams making a contribution to the Amateur projects that are today advancing the state of the art!

73,

Dan
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by K0RGR on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Imagine if the major ham manufacturers were producing radios that all used a common programming scheme, with standardized interfaces.

You might have a common 'radio engine' at the heart of the thing, with different 'peripherals' depending on the type of system you're building. A handheld would have relatively few interfaces, though things like 802.11 and Bluetooth could be added so that users could access the Internet and do EchoLink when they're having their latte at Starbucks. The 802.11 could provide a control link for local HT's operating in a net. Etc., etc, etc...

There would be a different set of standard interfaces for mobiles, and yet another for 'base station' use.

This is a great idea!
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KC8VWM on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

While I agree that many of the existing things cellphones can do is great, we shouldn't try to "mimic" what they are already doing.

While sending photos, text messaging, camera phones etc. is all well and good for existing cell phone technology, Amateur radio equipment on the other hand should be doing things that don't already exist.

You are correct. Amateur radio equipment should be doing things that would even make the average cell phone users jaw drop.

So the question is, what are these new technology capabilities exactly?

73
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W9WHE-II on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Have you ever looked at what an APCO 25 radio can do?

- transmit Text, data, ID, over the radio.
- work on mixed modes, i.e. analog AND digital.
- reprogram a single or group of radios over the air and "steer" them to a different frequency.
- "ping" a specific radio or a group of radios like a pager and cause them to "unmute".
-remotely cause a radio to go into transmit with high compression so you can remotely hear what is going on around the HT.


This is all available TODAY in the commercial world, but not from Icom, kenwood or Yaesu. We must look to Motorola, M/A comm and others.

What have the "big 3" offered?
- strobe lights & CW practice

Now you know why PS thinks we are "outmoded". We are.

W9WHE
Fully APCO 25 compliant


 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KF9Z on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Why DSTAR? Motorola already has a well defined open source digital standard that hams can use today in APCO25. You can buy surplus or second-hand radios for less than any Icom DSTAR radio and the Motorola radios are MUCH better built. I ran over mine...with my mini-van! It made it through OK but needed a new case. Sure they can be a pain to program and require a little more patience to set-up the way you would like but they run with NO issues. Ask someone who puts their life at risk for the public and chances are they use Motorola gear because of their design and durability. Most any newer Motorola can do digital (APCO25), text, radio to radio pinging, groups, trunking and MUCH MORE. You can set-up your radio to accept only calls from those you wish to talk with at that moment (like a hamfest) or digital for those times when intermod and band usage is an issue.

What I do not understand WHY Icom would try and re-invent the wheel? An open source digital standard is already available and with in reach of anyone with enough money to buy a DSTAR rig. I use an XTS3000 that I bought from eBay for about $211 shipped. I also have an XTS3000 model 3 that I picked up for about $600 with battery and charger. Both do digital and they were about $20 to program. There are many APCO25 digital repeaters around the country and used Motorola repeaters that can pass digital pop up on eBay for only a few hundred dollars and it will pass both D and A! Oh well...I am not touting Motorola over any ham transceiver but why not use a standard that has been around for MANY years and the technology is widely available? With the number of APCO25 radios the big three could sell the price might drop to a level where most hams could justify the added cost.

You should read up on the features of APCO25. It can do many things you mentioed and more. It is also upgradable to add new features as they become available. Why create a new standard the only Icom will adopt? Do you think Kenwood and Yaesu will jump on board with an Icom 'open' standard? My guess is no. With an already existing standard the big three might be more inclined to jump into digital.

Darren
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W0UHF on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I may be wrong here...but what I was reading on another forum on APCO25 vs DSTAR is that with APCO25, any manufacture would have to pay a license to inplement the APCO25 standard for each model radio. With such low margins on Amateur equipment, you will never find APCO25 implemented on those models. Now yes you can purchase the part 90 models with APCO25 and use them on the ham bands, but they are usually much more expensive (not counting used surplus models) and don't have VFOs and the software to program your radio is quite expensive (as in the case of motorolas).
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W0UHF on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
When I first saw the ICOM DSTAR that was my same thought. Oh great another proprietary mode. But I was wrong.

This is an open standard, no license needed to implement. The JARL spearheaded the DSTAR project and any other manufacturer is free to use it. No one has to pay ICOM anything.

With APCO25 even though the spec maybe open to read, it is patented and a license fee needs to be paid to implement the mode.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KC8VWM on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
How about the idea of a cheap and clean "standard" interface that can interfaced directly from your HT with any “off-the-shelf” notebooks, hand-held computers (PDS's) and similarly evolving mobile and personal data products now and in the future?

Then at least, we would be in a better position to experiment with various software applications, hardware like digital cameras, develop newer communication protocals and possibly even advance as far ahead as 2003!

As it stands right now, we are mostly handicapped because we lack any digital communication interface standard, serial port, USB port or whatever universal port on HT portables.

Interfacing your HT through sound cards using cables connected to speaker/mic jacks can only allow you to go so far and do so much.

There needs to be an incorporation of a "brain" inside the HT to facilitate a universal connection from the radio equipment to any external portable electronic device. Perhaps when that happens, then we can start thinking more about open standards and digital communication protocals.

73
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
D-Star is nice, but the price has to come down before people start flocking to it en-masse.

There are also some people who will never want to give up their analog radios, which leads to another problem.

Frequency coordination is nice to have but a lot of repeaters are going unused. I think it's time that coordinated repeaters be evaluated, and only the truly active ones stay on the air. Use it or lose it. Having a dead coordinated repeater is wasting valuable spectrum. The first to go should be "paper repeaters" i.e. machines that don't exist but were coordinated.

There's also other things like HF digital SSB, but again, it's kind of expensive.

Maybe when the price comes down, we'll see.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W9WHE-II on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
AB2MH writes:

"There are also some people who will never want to give up their analog radios, which leads to another problem".


You do NOT have to give up analog to go digital. Motorola & M/A comm make DUAL MODE radios that do BOTH analog AND digital modes seamlessly. Why not have BOTH in a single radio?

+++++++++++

"D-Star is nice, but the price has to come down before people start flocking to it en-masse"

Here is a real problem. Hams want the sun, moon AND stars and they want it all for $99. You are simply not going to get a Porsche for the proce of a Pinto. Any why go D-star, when the WORLD-WIDE DIGITAL STANDARD OF APCO 25?
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
> You do NOT have to give up analog to go digital.
> Motorola & M/A comm make DUAL MODE radios that do
> BOTH analog AND digital modes seamlessly. Why not
> have BOTH in a single radio?

So are you saying that you can have a net with analog and digital users together and it will operate seamlessly? What's the benefit of having digital then?

> Here is a real problem. Hams want the sun, moon AND
> stars and they want it all for $99. You are simply
> not going to get a Porsche for the proce of a
> Pinto.

I agree.

> Any why go D-star, when the WORLD-WIDE DIGITAL
> STANDARD OF APCO 25?

Both can co-exist.
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB0WR on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Before running off into left field with a wish list consider the following:

Repeaters: multiple many-to-many conversations. Have you done a bandwidth anaylsis of this?

Arbitrary digital modulations: digital modulations have many permutations. There are wideband and narrowband schemes requiring different filter setups and some need linear and some need Class C amplification. How do you do all this arbitrarily?

Full-duplex: Have you analyzed the bandwidths required?

Buffered conversations: Have you ever done this? I have. Not pretty. Think about it.

Identifying modulation types and demodulate automatically: Have you analyzed the processing requirements for this?

Your wish list mixes all seven layers of the OSI model together in a smush, mixing applications with data transport. Could we define the list a little better?

tim ab0wr
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by N3AIU on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

Remember the good ol' days when radios had knobs?

73, Nick DL/N3AIU/P
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG4RUL on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
If APCO 25 radios were mass marketed, they would become affordable. With multiple standards this can NEVER happen! Don't re-invent the wheel!

Dennis KG4RUL
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WA7NCL on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
There is more money in cell phones than ham radio. There are too few hams to justify new designs for ham radio only. The use of ham radio has to be non-comercial so it's use is limited to hobby only.

There needs to be more hams so manufacturers can make more money. This justifies more "new" product engineering. We need to bring in more new blood by simplifying licensing for entry level hams. The teach them and keep them interested.

Some rather simple schemes to allow selective calling by call sign through existing repeaters would go a long way to make many more of us carry and use all those handhelds we have. I don't like having to hear everything that is going on on the repeater all the time. If my buddies could call me and vice versa I would leave it on all the time.

There could be a "CQ" mode that you could allow anybody to open the squelch and have a random QSO. So ham radio could still be spontaneous if you want it.

Are there systems that do this now? Anybody know?
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by W0UHF on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"If APCO 25 radios were mass marketed, they would become affordable. With multiple standards this can NEVER happen! Don't re-invent the wheel!"

You missed the point. Amateur Radio is not a big enough market to be a "mass". Manufacturers can make higher profits selling larger numbers of radios at higher mark up to public safety and buisnesses.

For example, I recently talked to a dealer of ham radio equipment and of commercial equipment. Most dealers only make 3%-5% mark up on ham equipment and 40% mark up on business band. I'm sure there is a similar profit margin for the manufacturer. The manufactures have to pay a license fee to add APCO25 to a model. Ham's won't pay the higher price and there is less profit potential for the manufacuterer and much smaller volume in the ham market.
As it is, I'm surprised ICOM, Kenwood, and Vertex Standard make any radios for the ham market at all.

Getting back my first post, look at the open source projects for the inovation for the future of ham radio.

73,

Dan
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
FWIW, there are already relatively low cost boards available for experimentation with GNU radio. Pretty soon you'll be able to make an entire transceiver in software and the boards will do D/A conversion. You can do any mode, you just need the software. Pretty cool!
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KB9YUR on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
How about a simple 6/2m HT with SSB transmit/receive
capabilities for under $300. Is this to much to ask
for ?!?
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WF7A on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"What's GNU?"
"I dunno. What's new with you?" *ba dum dum*

Seriously, maybe a deal can be struck with the owner(s) of the APCO-25 patent: for amateur radio use only, a manufacturer can get a license fee discount...or the ham would buy a user's license, similar to computer software. He or she would provide a call sign and the manufacturer (or Apco people) would send a key to unlock the software...at a reasonable fee, of course.

SDR (Software Defined Radios) are the way to go, guys--FlexRadio sells an outstanding SDR HF radio, so the technology's there; we just have to make it happen.

Ciao,
Rich
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KE7AKS on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Maybe we need to have the radio builders just interface to the cell phone.... they seem to use 800MHZ radio for their purposes just fine.. cell phones are still radios! I wonder, we seem to get there with GPS, and APRS -- Who knows what the future holds.
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by VE1BLL on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
DoD is doing the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) project - the basics are all public knowledge. It's all about having downloadable 'waveforms' (gag) so that any military radio can do "anything" (sic). I'm fairly certain that JTRS will do for military radio what the Space Shuttle has done for inexpensive space flight.

Here are some general points to ponder:

Some of the best 'waveforms' need to be programmed into a sea of gates (FPGA or similar). General purpose processors and DSP chips just won't cut it for the very latest high performance 'waveforms'.

I/O requirements, including user interface, vary by application. Do you really want to control your $1000 R/C airplane using a crummy WT keypad?

Perhaps you can load in 'waveforms' for LF navigation beacons and Ku-band Satellite TV in the same box, but you probably know that the antenna requirements vary slightly (ahem).

Even if the system provides a nice F-connector to connect the Ku-band satellite dish, do you think that the designers of such general hardware will be up-to-date with all the latest applicable standards? Will the hardware include the ability to output selectable +13 or +18 volts 500 mA DC for the LNBF, along with 22kHz tones and DiSEqC commands for the switches and H-H rotors? Oops, forgot to include that hardware on the antenna circuit. So sorry...

Also, more and more signals are encrypted. Do you think that the owners of such signals (or keys) are going to provide the necessary source code so that you can provide a downloadable 'waveform' including the crypto? Not likely (hackers dream). This applies to military projects as well as XM Radio, etc. You'll still need a custom chip or card per subscription.

There's a lot of promise in SW Defined Radios, but you really need to move the decimal point one position left on the hype to get to something practical.

But, I hereby predict that there will be an open standard exactly as suggested.

In fact there will probably be several.

All totally incompatible.

;-)
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WA1RNE on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!


New radio technology, whether it's analog or digital based still has a common requirement: a purpose.



Innovative, state of the art technology can make amateur communications more useful and interesting, but more importantly, we need to re-invent our "charter" or mission to serve the public more effectively.


First, go back to the beginning of the century and review how and why amateur radio was established and eventually resulted in a licensed service.


Compare what we accomplished over the first 70 years, then compare that to our innovations and accomplishments over the last 20 years. There's a big difference.



Question: If the cellular service has made us "look bad", what about the Internet?


My brother was over last night and we were swapping stories about the mid 70's and the CB boom. (as kids, we started out with a pair of walkie talkies) I used to help him with his antennas to get out over the local chatter and noise and he recalled how it made such a difference to have someone to help select and modify them.

At the end he said, "aren't you guys playing second fiddle now to the Internet? He looked at some of my antennas and asked "don't people look at this and just say, hey, I can get on the computer and IM someone or even send live video?"


My response was that I still like the thrill of being able to establish communication myself, live directly via radio.


That's great stuff for a "hobby", which is slowly displacing our need as a vital public service.


We must develop better uses for our capabilities - in addition to keeping technologically current. The two go hand in hand.


You can have the best, most flexible communications system in the world, but if you haven't established a revised charter that delivers that needed "service" to the public - without duplicating capabilities that are already in place, then you still haven't left the starting gate......


WA1RNE
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KE6OGC on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Living near houston, one thing i have noticed, during a hurricane cell phones and all their neet little gadgets are useless. Ham radios will stay on the air!
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by K8MHZ on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"You can have the best, most flexible communications system in the world, but if you haven't established a revised charter that delivers that needed "service" to the public - without duplicating capabilities that are already in place, then you still haven't left the starting gate......"

Very true.

Our claim to fame is reliability. Why not build on that? We make sure that our systems do not rely on outside (read vulnerable) resources to work and pride ourselves with seamless parallel redundancies. We stay trained in multiple means....if voice fails we fall back to CW....

Some of us already do this. This may be our saving grace. For now at least...
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB0WR on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
At the end he said, "aren't you guys playing second fiddle now to the Internet? He looked at some of my antennas and asked "don't people look at this and just say, hey, I can get on the computer and IM someone or even send live video?"


My response was that I still like the thrill of being able to establish communication myself, live directly via radio.


That's great stuff for a "hobby", which is slowly displacing our need as a vital public service.


We must develop better uses for our capabilities - in addition to keeping technologically current. The two go hand in hand.


You can have the best, most flexible communications system in the world, but if you haven't established a revised charter that delivers that needed "service" to the public - without duplicating capabilities that are already in place, then you still haven't left the starting gate......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess I would have had to reply: What second fiddle?

When the latest disaster has knocked out all the cell phones and internet connections that "second fiddle" ham radio antenna could wind up being in big demand.

What is second fiddle is entirely dependent on the situation at the time.

It certainly isn't sufficient justification to turn amateur radio into a common carrier service providing connections to the internet.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG4RUL on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"If APCO 25 radios were mass marketed, they would become affordable. With multiple standards this can NEVER happen! Don't re-invent the wheel!"

You missed the point. Amateur Radio is not a big enough market to be a "mass". Manufacturers can make higher profits selling larger numbers of radios at higher mark up to public safety and buisnesses.

++++++++++++++++

Actually, you missed my point - having multiple standards ASSURES that a critical mass will never be achieved.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AE7G on August 2, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
�Cellphones today are already making us look bad�

�If we can wow people with our technology and present them with modern technical challenges then we have a good chance of attracting new members into the hobby in great numbers.�

I�m building a one tube xmitter based upon plans in the 1948 HandBook, along with the matching power supply. Looking for an xtal to put it on 30 meters. During this process, I�m learning a lot about why and how this power supply works, and how and why the signal gets transferred into the antenna.

So, what is it about a cell phone that makes this look bad?

It would probably be fun to building something along the same lines for 2 meters, then do the same with solid state.

I still think the best way to wow someone is with a crystal radio, it functions without any added electricity. Pure Magic.

73
Bob
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by PE1NPG on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
We are moving from the soldering iron to developing software. I'm experimenting now with the outstanding (and simple)Softrock-50 and SDR software. that's where we are going, with more possiblities if HF sampling becomes available.
Better get used to it! Standarisation could be a positive thing, but with the large amount of possibilities....

By the way: I also use cellphone. My interest in the hobby is understanding technology and be able to apply it myselve. Thats enough for me.

73 de Jean-Pierre, PE1NPG
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KB9YZL on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The Author wrote: >>>”Cellphones today are already making us look bad. They hop frequencies, use spectrum efficiently, transmit video & pictures, send text-messages and even browse the web. Imagine where they'll be in 10 years!”<<<

Yeah! ………….Just imagine; ….maybe in ten years your cell phone will actually work outside of major urban areas! I’ve long suspected that all of the ancillary crap that they load onto cell phones is really there to give us something to do while we stare at that “No Service” message.

K8MHZ is right: ……We need to build on our reliability, and not look like a cell phone wannabe.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KT8K on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
The old ways will never die, but we must also embrace the future. Open standards are needed, however, as standards owned (or even created) by corporate entities will always be fragmented in their application, breeding the very over-competitive and needlessly expensive condition we see in the US cellphone market. Why should there be 6 sets of antennas on a cellphone tower, and many independent networks, when one or two would do (the second one in case the first fails)?

Since open standards are incapable of taking over by themselves (note the progress of Linux and other open-source software "standards"), their application requires political will. I remember reading somewhere that all cellphones in Europe are compatible and use a single protocol and network, GSM, I think? I'm sure that didn't happen without government action, and I'm reasonably sure it saves the average consumer a LOT.

Having political will benefit the public requires that we vote in officials who are not in the pockets of big business, that we fight for not just campaign reform, but lobbying reform among other things, and that we fight to fix the current corrupt political system that has evolved in the US. When politicians no longer can enrich themselves by pandering to corporate and special interests we have a better chance to have them do things which actually benefit the public as a whole, like institutionalizing open and common standards in the right places.

Achieving the great efficiencies available with open standards will require political will and government action. That will be hard to achieve in a world where there are so many corporations with far greater wealth than all but a handful of countries, and where so many people are uneducated, ignorant, and open to manipulation by corporate and other special interests via the corporate-controlled media. I am no proponent of big government, but there are some areas who's sheer scale requires governmental action, and where nothing else will get the job done in even a governmentally-efficient manner.

I'm sure others can offer corrections to what I said, and better ideas than mine, and I look forward to seeing them.
73 & good luck to us all de kt8k - Tim
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AI2IA on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KT8K has it. We cannot forget that radio spectrum is a limited resource. This is why we have an FCC among other things. Therefore, flexibility and simplicity are key factors in preserving its usefulness. Standards must change with advances in technology, but when standards change, a path must remain open to backtrack if necessary. A path must be available to easily and simply resort to an alternate means if the new standard results in problems.

Unfortunately, those in the only sane and logical position to manage all of this is civil government. Industry may propose, but alas, only government should decide. It will demand vigilance to keep opportunists from spoiling not only a national heritage, but a world resource as well. At least if most people realize the see it as KT8K mentions, we have at least made a good beginning.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KF4VGX on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KH2D years ago put this information on his website as a prank . See link,

http://kh2d.net/software/echocell/


I've never viewed it as a prank.
Some of you may be surprised ,this could become a reality.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by DJ8GO on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KT8K: the government mandating the design standards of future ham radio devices down to the basic technical level? You can’t be serious. (b.t.w., even the GSM standard for cell phones in Europe and most other countries resulted from cooperation between manufacturers, not from regulation)

While an open standard is a good idea in theory, I just don’t see the practical incentives for manufacturers to agree on a common approach at this time. The market advantage that could be gained by a common standard is way too small to force any cooperation that probably would mean giving up some cool exclusive features that they can offer as part of proprietary solutions.

The only practical way to bring this about is the "killer application" that is so compelling that hams will want to buy devices only if they support that capability. Write that application for a platform of your choice, then standardization will follow.

 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB0WR on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
kt8k:

An "over-competitive" situation breds a "needlessly expensive condition"? This statement contradicts both economic theory as I was taught it and as reality actually shows us.

Cell phone *SERVICE* has become a commodity. Obtaining cell phone service is a matter of the consumer shopping for the highest value at the lowest pricce. The "common" infrastructure is now spread over so many cell phones that the infrastructure is a small portion of each individual unit's service cost. Cell phone inventory and on-going servicing labor costs are probably a much higher portion of the overall cost. The cost of that "next" antenna on the tower is marginal in the overall scheme of things.

"Over-competitiveness" results in competitors dropping out of the market because they aren't as efficient and can't meet the price points of other competitors. Witness the airline market - too many competitors and lots of bankrupticies. It certainly doesn't result in consumer prices going up. Witness the oil markets - few competitors and unrestricted prices - versus the household commodity market - lots of competitors (walmart, bottom dollar, dollar general, etc) where prices get driven to the very lowest point possible.

"Open" standards and "fixed" standards are two different things. You are arguing for "fixed" standards while calling them "open" - a mistake in nomenclature. Fixed standards are the bane of progress. God forbid we should ever see government start to "fix" standards. Linux would still be on the 2.2 kernel. As the open standard linux has progressed over the years, incompatibilities *have" been introduced. Libraries change and old programs will no longer compile under new libraries. New programs won't compile under old libraries. Yet the progress goes on and methods for handling the incompatibilities are being developed.

Institutionalizing standards is NOT the way to go. Coming up with a new, popular standard with enough marginal utility that the old standard will be supplanted is the only way to go. And in its turn, it will be supplanted also.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AC6IJ on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Amateur radio is perfect the way it is today without any added high tech. gadjets.

Cell phone addicts talk to only one other person at a time while hams know that the whole world may be listening to there conversation. Thats what it's all about, having the power to be heard by many. We all love it. Bill
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by K6TLA on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Has the author been involved in a Vulcan mind meld with W6TH?
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
AC6J wrote:

> Amateur radio is perfect the way it is today
> without any added high tech. gadjets.

That is certainly not true. If you think that's true, you have no idea of what the hobby is about.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WA2JJH on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Nice idea. It will never happen. Look a the rig makers
habits. "Love EM(sell it).....THEN LEAVE EM(after sales support)
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WA2JJH on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Nice idea. It will never happen. Look a the rig makers
habits. "Love EM(sell it).....THEN LEAVE EM(after sales support)
 
Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG6WLV on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I think Patrick has raised valid points about the future of ham radio in this article, and the responses have been excellent.
I think we have the spectrum space to develop SDR equipment and experiment with new digital modes. As others have mentioned, a "generic" radio that can support innovative new modes would be a killer product. There is a whole group of hams who spend the majority of their time writing new software for us; if they had a radio that would support it, the new modes would come.
Personally, I think a lot of the features of modern cell phones are just eyewash. They are bundled with more useful features to drive up the monthly fees and create a forced obsolescence in the cell phone industry, and are not marketplace-driven.
 
Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing  
by N3JBH on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Or better known as Digital Radio Mondiale. Is freely distributed in the WinDRM program. Is this not good enough?
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by K1CJS on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
".....Personally, I think a lot of the features of modern cell phones are just eyewash. They are bundled with more useful features to drive up the monthly fees and create a forced obsolescence in the cell phone industry,....."

Oh, how true. Talking about standards, there weren't any there till recently, either.

I agree with the sentiment about the cell phone, though. I bought one to use as a phone--don't need no stinkin' camera, (not enough resolution--or picture size for that matter) no stinkin' internet, (have a laptop and wi-fi for that) no stinkin' PDA, (for what??) and no stinkin' keyboard! I bought the phone to use as a......telephone!

As far as D-Star goes, Icom has it--just trying to get Yaesu or Kenwood to adopt it would be a major undertaking, just like trying to get IBM to adopt a feature that Heulett-Packard uses--no matter how good it may be.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AC6IJ on August 3, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Very interesting reading here. It seems that younger hams in there 20's like all the bells and whistles while all the older hams have mellowed to just enjoy the hobby as it is. Bill
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AA4PB on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I like the idea of a real radio that is software defined so that new modes and changes can be loaded into the firmware. Personally I am not interested in a system that attempts to turn my PC into a radio. I like a real front panel with knobs and switches.

I think experience shows us however that the software always ends up being limited by the hardware. Take the PC as an example. Software always reaches the point where we need faster processors with more memory and more I/O ports in order to run it. The idea that we can purchase one piece of hardware and just continue to upgrade it with new software is a dream that will probably never come true.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KT8K on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Thanks, dj8go, I stand corrected, and agree that fixed or government mandated standards are not the way to go here. Since ham radio has a strong historical and "keep it simple" element, I guess I haven't seen a "killer ap" yet that would drive masses of hams to insist on it. And how do we get the manufacturers to accept a common standard, as was done to make GSM common among European cellphones, and still ensure the same flexibility and potential for creative development as seems to exist in open source operating systems?

And thanks also ab0wr. At first, looking back, I thought I mispoke when I said "over-competitive", but now I realize that we have a situation in some industries where corporations compete intensely with each other, but it is their predatory marketing techniques that put the customer at a significant disadvantage. Cellphones are similar to air travel, credit cards, and other areas: incredibly convoluted customer agreements (that it would take a squad of lawyers to unravel) give the customer the simple choice - either agree to terms that are nearly impossible to fully comprehend, and accept that you will be taken advantage of, or go without the service. I personally hate being forced to do business with companies that are trying to trick me.

Although the cost of adding a cellphone antenna to an existing tower is a lot less than putting up the initial tower (or many other costs), if those antennas were spread out in only a single- or double-coverage system they would probably give several times the area and quality of coverage that we now enjoy. Could a less costly network possibly free up industry funds for development of better and more innovative services like those I read are available in Europe?

Sorry to wander off topic ... this has been a very interesting discussion, tho ...
73 de kt8k - Tim
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
> I like the idea of a real radio that is software
> defined so that new modes and changes can be loaded
> into the firmware. Personally I am not interested in a
> system that attempts to turn my PC into a radio. I like
> a real front panel with knobs and switches.

I agree that I like that too, but this problem can be easily solved. We can design a radio computer case with knobs and switches. They are already doing something similar with home theater PC's - i.e. making cases so that they don't look like computers, and also putting controls on the front so that they operate like home theater components. But inside they are all computer.

> I think experience shows us however that the software
> always ends up being limited by the hardware. Take the
> PC as an example. Software always reaches the point
> where we need faster processors with more memory and
> more I/O ports in order to run it. The idea that we can
> purchase one piece of hardware and just continue to
> upgrade it with new software is a dream that will
> probably never come true.

But as we're seeing now, processors and memory are becoming cheaper and faster at an alarming rate. While I agree that you won't have upgrades for life with a SDR, you can get a pretty good life out of it, since most amateur radio applications will not use a lot of CPU or memory.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB2MH on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
AC6IJ wrote:

> Very interesting reading here. It seems that younger
> hams in there 20's like all the bells and whistles
> while all the older hams have mellowed to just enjoy
> the hobby as it is. Bill

That's probably true, because I'm sure if you were a 20 something year old ham back in the old days, you'd want to make a better mousetrap... err.. radio.

Back then they used tubes, then came transistors and ICs. Now it's software and DSPs.

People say homebrewing is dead but they never look at all of the FSF projects going on, including GNU radio.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KC8VWM on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!

I think most people are missing the main point.

The "standard" should not be the main attraction but rather it should be about the new communication capabilities that we "can" achieve that should be the main focus.

This squabbling over various protocals and software interfacing methods doesn't actually describe what we can actually "do" using amateur radio.

We need to focus on increasing and expanding our overall communication capablities and not just focus on a particular interface protocal.

73
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by WA1RNE on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
AB0WR wrote:


" I guess I would have had to reply: What second fiddle?

When the latest disaster has knocked out all the cell phones and internet connections that "second fiddle" ham radio antenna could wind up being in big demand.

What is second fiddle is entirely dependent on the situation at the time.

It certainly isn't sufficient justification to turn amateur radio into a common carrier service providing connections to the internet."



>>> When it comes to getting people interested in ham radio, the Internet is a potent competitor. Over the past 10 years, it has very likely lured thousands of people away who might otherwise have turned to ham radio instead.

There was also a time when Packet Radio was all the rage, offering data communications to remote sites via radio.

Today, Packet has been replaced by Pactor, and now there are those who believe we need advanced email services, i.e. WinLink to keep amateur radio in the "communications mainstream."


I've never implied that we should turn amateur radio into a common carrier service - quite the contrary. But it's funny how some amateurs - with ARRL backing - have concluded that we need to do just that; duplicate the capabilities already provided by a massive common carrier structure.


In my opinion, this is a key example where our priorities are a little confused.

Some say amateur radio is fine just the way it is.

Others seem tired of conventional radio communications and want their email via ham radio.

Others, like the author of this article, feel we should concentrate on a new more flexible VHF/UHF hardware standard that is configurable via software. The Flex Radio is a very innovative example that follows this logic, but primarliy for HF. (sure it could be converted for use just about anywhere)


I believe ham radio needs a top to bottom reality check - and I mean that in a constructive way. Competing with common carrier services might be fun and interesting for some and will likely create a new revenue stream for equipment manufacturers and others.

But without a revised public service capability, ham radio as we know it will slowly spiral out of the public eye, and with it, so will our spectrum allocations.


We should start by working directly with our Emergency Management officials, and ask where the real issues and gaps lie within our current communications capabilities. The answers will hopefully add focus to a real need and spawn some real "out of the box" ideas from within the amateur community.


WA1RNE
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG4RUL on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KC8VWM writes on August 4, 2006:

"I think most people are missing the main point.

The "standard" should not be the main attraction but rather it should be about the new communication capabilities that we "can" achieve that should be the main focus.

This squabbling over various protocals and software interfacing methods doesn't actually describe what we can actually "do" using amateur radio.

We need to focus on increasing and expanding our overall communication capablities and not just focus on a particular interface protocal."

==========

If we don't settle on a common standard what we as Amateur Radio Operators will be able to "do" is not be able to communicate amongst ourselves. A common standard will also drive development that will eventually result in more affordable equipment.

On the plus side however, if no one can afford the gear and there are many standards, it will be really quiet when you turn your rig on.

Dennis KG4RUL
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG6WLV on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
Tim ab0wr, I can cite three examples of government-mandated technical standards that were incredible successes: NTSC color television (minimum usable life, about 50 years), FM Stereo Multiplex (minimum usable life, about 45 years), AM standard broadcast (minimum usable life 80-plus years). These standards were all field-tested by the industry with the FCC holding the final approval rights, and many inferior systems were discarded. Contrast that with AM stereo -- potential usable life, 30 years; practical usable life, zero years. The FCC allowed the marketplace to set the standard and four competing systems destroyed the potential for a technical improvement along sound business practices.
Let industry innovate and the let the FCC regulate. Both are necessary.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KC8VWM on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
On the plus side however, if no one can afford the gear and there are many standards, it will be really quiet when you turn your rig on.

Dennis KG4RUL

-----------------

Hardly a "Plus" as I am sure you would agree. I prefer to use the term "interoperability" as opposed to using the term "standard."

Look at it this way. If we suddenly decided that our "standard" was going to be "SSB" mode then would we have all these other modes to choose from on our radio equipment to operate today?

Each standard is going to have it's plus or minuses. The overall objective should be to have it all and not to limit ourselves or our capacity or ability to communicate by choosing a single standard.

Why settle when we can do so much more..., with more?


73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB0WR on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
kg6wlv:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tim ab0wr, I can cite three examples of government-mandated technical standards that were incredible successes: NTSC color television (minimum usable life, about 50 years), FM Stereo Multiplex (minimum usable life, about 45 years), AM standard broadcast (minimum usable life 80-plus years). These standards were all field-tested by the industry with the FCC holding the final approval rights, and many inferior systems were discarded. Contrast that with AM stereo -- potential usable life, 30 years; practical usable life, zero years. The FCC allowed the marketplace to set the standard and four competing systems destroyed the potential for a technical improvement along sound business practices.
Let industry innovate and the let the FCC regulate. Both are necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NTSC was an industry group that developed a standard that was based on ealier work done by the Radio Manufacturing Association. While the FCC may have commissioned the industry group that developed the standard, the government did not MANDATE the standard, industry did. In fact, when the government initially tried to mandate a color TV system in the early 1950's, it had to recind its mandate because most of the industry ignored the "mandate" and went a different way. This is an example of government efficiency in setting standards?

FM stereo is not a good example of government efficiency either. AM stereo multiplex was available in the late 1950's. Some stations were using it. The FCC, in all it's wisdom, decided it wouldn't license enough spectrum space per station to allow AM stereo but it would for FM stereo. Know why? The FCC was afraid AM stereo would put FM stereo out of business! 40 years later the FCC decided to allow AM stereo but guess what? They couldn't decide on what standard to use so they allowed ANY standard to be used assuming the economics and the consumer will decide on which one is best! This is an example of government efficiency in setting standards? They kill an entire industry aborning? It wasn't because there were competing standards that AM Stereo died, it was because the government, in its infinite wisdom, killed it when it was a true competitor to FM Stereo.

AM broadcasting began around 1910. It was until more than a decade later that the FRC began assigning channel spacing and enforcing interference requlations. By then the AM broadcast transmission standards had already been developed by the pioneers in the industry. The government had little to do with the actual transmission standards by that time, only operational standards. This is an example of government efficiency in setting standards?

I'll stand by my beliefs. Government mandated standards are a recipe for disaster - just ask AM Stereo.

tim ab0wr
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KC8VWM on August 4, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
when the government initially tried to mandate a color TV system in the early 1950's, it had to recind its mandate because most of the industry ignored the "mandate" and went a different way. This is an example of government efficiency in setting standards?

================

Good comments Tim.

I agree that we should not be implementing a specific communication "standard" in Amateur Radio.

Amateur radio is supposed to be about experimentation with as many standards and/or modes as possible. We should have the latitude to choose and use as many standards as we freely wish to operate. The danger with choosing and settling on a "single" standard is that we severely limit ourselves and our ability to communicate across a wide multi-communications platform.

Amateur radio has never been about the idea of limiting our communication capabilities. After all, we are hams - not cellphone carriers.

73 Charles - KC8VWM
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG6WLV on August 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
"...They couldn't decide on what standard to use so they allowed ANY standard to be used assuming the economics and the consumer will decide on which one is best! This is an example of government efficiency in setting standards?..."
No, it's an example of non-efficiency in setting standards, as I said. If the FCC had had the industry field test the competing AM stereo systems and chosen one instead of letting the marketplace decide, AM stereo would've succeeded. As I said.
The fact remains, that the broadcast industry provided a higher level of public service, programming quality, technical excellence and return on investment when it was more tightly regulated.
My point in raising this side issue is that regulation is a means of bringing order out of chaos, and can nurture innovation rather than suppressing it.
Relating it to ham radio, at some point I believe the FCC will have to set aside certain parts of the amateur bands for technology such as spread-spectrum and the like, giving them a place to grow and gradually supplant more traditional methods. The technology we utilize will then be up to us.
The proper balance between innovation and regulation will have to be made, but they both have a legitimate part in the equation.
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by KG4RUL on August 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
KC8VWM writes on August 4, 2006:

"On the plus side however, if no one can afford the gear and there are many standards, it will be really quiet when you turn your rig on.

Dennis KG4RUL

-----------------

Hardly a "Plus" as I am sure you would agree. I prefer to use the term "interoperability" as opposed to using the term "standard."

Look at it this way. If we suddenly decided that our "standard" was going to be "SSB" mode then would we have all these other modes to choose from on our radio equipment to operate today?

Each standard is going to have it's plus or minuses. The overall objective should be to have it all and not to limit ourselves or our capacity or ability to communicate by choosing a single standard.

Why settle when we can do so much more..., with more?


73 Charles - KC8VWM "

============

Charles, lighten up!

Dennis KG4RUL
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by K2WH on August 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
I don't agree with this at all. The move to integrate our radios or new radios more and more into dependency on other pieces of equipment (ie. computers), makes ham radio less and less able to provide emergency communications when needed. It is usually a relatively simple matter to power up a radio when needed, but not so with a computer attached or other external hardware.

We are slowly eroding our abilities through this integration and moving amateur radio more and more into the realm of a cell phone.

K2WH
 
RE: Open Standard for VHF/UHF Needed  
by AB0WR on August 5, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
kg6wlv:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No, it's an example of non-efficiency in setting standards, as I said. If the FCC had had the industry field test the competing AM stereo systems and chosen one instead of letting the marketplace decide, AM stereo would've succeeded. As I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think you missed my point. It was not the fact that the FCC didn't set a standard that killed AM Stereo. What killed AM Stereo was the FCC not letting it develop at the same time FM Stereo did. The FCC picked who the winner was going to be way back in the 50's. By the time they decided to let AM Stereo compete, FM Stereo had the market tied up all round, including customer loyalty and advertising committments. They should have had it tied up after a 40 year headstart! It was *this* situation that shows how well government setting of standards works.

kg6wlv:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<