Spring 2003 Issue

OP ED

Is the ARRL Turning 2.4 GHz into the Next CB Band?

 By Ron Curry, N6QL

Many newspapers around the U.S. print a page entitled “Op-Ed.” This usually runs opposite the editorial page; hence its name. Sometimes the name takes on a double meaning, when the author has a viewpoint opposite to the editor’s. Its purpose is to give a writer an opportunity to express a view or propose an idea for discussion in a longer format than what is normally found in a letter to the editor. There are many views and ideas floating around in the world of VHF that are worth considering and discussing. Please note that the views expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect the views of CQ VHF or its editorial staff. —N6CL

The ARRL has been making a media blitz on their efforts to help amateur radio apply some of the 802.11 spread-spectrum technology that most of the world is already using. This is to be commended. However, along with this, the ARRL and their HSMM working group are trying to attract new hams (and presumably ARRL memberships) by holding out the promise of running unnecessarily huge amplifiers and omni-directional antennas connected to consumer 802.11b equipment. Here is one recruiting statement from the ARRL website:

“Today an individual can obtain an amateur radio license with a straight-forward written test and no Morse Code required. Then they can run up to 100 watts on spread-spectrum modes such as IEEE 802.11b and connect their ‘access point’ to any antenna they prefer.”

Attract them by saying they can run 100 watts on any antenna? It’s not clear that the ARRL’s HSMM group has put much thought into what they are promoting here, nor do they understand or seem to care about the impact on other users of the band. Is the ARRL just looking for membership revenue? Do they really want to provoke 20- and 30-billion dollar computer industry companies to start lobbying to remove hams from the band? This will surely happen once they understand what the ARRL is promoting and thousands of Part 15 users start complaining of interference from ham “jammers.” These are issues that the ARRL’s HSMM group apparently has not thought through very well.

Certainly there is a much more useful and important list of benefits that may attract the kind of people we want as new hams. A better approach might be to promote the opportunity to interact with friendly hams who are experts in RF technology; or learn more about and contribute to building better, low-cost, and efficient networks; or become part of defining new protocols to make 802.11b more applicable for large or long-distance networks (that’s not what it was designed for); or participate in designing new types of APs, routers, bridges, etc. etc. The thought of big amplifiers and “any antenna you prefer” will definitely attract new hams, but is it the kind of ham we want? Also, is that how we want to have amateur radio perceived? A little strategic thinking is in order here.

As a result of the ARRL and their “HSMM” initiative we are seeing hams talk about running very high power levels (high power is more than 500 mW on 2.4 GHz in my mind) using omni antennas. This may be from lack of knowledge of 2.4-GHz propagation and experience in using this equipment, but attempts by concerned hams to educate them have been met with resistance (to say the least). It is also completely inconsiderate of the millions of Part 15 users already on the band, many of whom depend on this technology to run their businesses and home offices.

I personally have resisted the temptation to put up high-gain omni-directional antennas and run high transmitter power. I’ve done this out of courtesy for the “shared spectrum,” but also because it simply is not necessary in most cases with good system design. Unfortunately, there are hams who do not think this way and may only consider their “rights” as amateurs. They may not take the time to understand why their inexpensive $120 access point works so poorly or how to get better results. With ARRL and the HSMM group encouragement this will only get worse. The current ARRL policy could turn the 2.4-GHz band into the next “CB” band!

Click here to return to this month's highlights
 

Click here to subscribe to CQ VHF and read more of Op Ed
 

_________________

© Copyright 2003, CQ Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced or republished, including posting to a website, in part or in whole, by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher, CQ Communications, Inc. Hyperlinks to this page are permitted.