KD0TLS: Southern MN APRS update

  I don't often write about southern Minnesota, because the infrastructure is static -- meaning it hardly ever changes. That situation is both good and bad: there aren't elements frequently going down, and there aren't new elements of infrastructure going on-air, either. 

 A few times a year, the Zumbrota RX-only gateway KE0YJJ will go off-air for a couple of weeks. The Northfield RX-only gateway AB0KT-10 came on-air about two years ago. Other than that, the only new infrastructure in southern Minnesota has been the addition of the WONE-4 digipeater near Winona -- which is, strictly speaking, across the border in Wisconsin. 

 The infrastructure landscape 

 Once upon a time, southern MN was quite "digipeater-heavy" in terms of infrastructure. Even today, the area still largely relies on only two big TX gateways: N0QVC-1 in Faribault, and W0NE -3 in Winona. As always, click on the image below to enlarge it.

Southern MN infrastructure

  As I previously wrote, there is a downside to relying on "mega-stations" for gating capacity. Due to packet collisions, these big gateways provide only baseline coverage -- though their powerful TX is a big benefit for wide-area messaging over RF.  

N0QVC-1 current coverage

 Near Winona, the smaller N0OWT-3 TX gateway handles local traffic quite efficiently. Not only does it gate the ID packets of the massive W0NE-3 station, it also takes some of the load from WI digipeaters off of W0NE-3. In fact, adding another RX-only I-Gate in the area near I-90 would make local coverage even more reliable. 

 Just like in digipeater-heavy Wisconsin, adding even a modest gateway in southern MN draws a large amount of digipeated traffic, even if local activity is scant. Operators may not see a local need for a gateway in places like Caledonia, Preston, or Wabasha. But the benefit to the network as a whole is much more significant. 

 I should also mention the TX I-Gate south of Albert Lea. NX0P covers I-35 and I-90 for motorists, while also handling traffic from the big digipeaters near Rochester. The station also has a solid hold on several Wisconsin digipeaters, and reaches into northern Iowa quite nicely. Its coverage to the north and west drops off sharply, however. This is likely due to the terrain. 

 In terms of digipeaters, there are several big stations. The pair around Rochester, W0MXW-3 and WB0MPE-7, are the anchors for a big fraction of southern MN. These two lack a reliable local gateway, as a local TX gateway disappeared this year and W0STV-10 has "issues". The other major gateway is in Mankato. N0BPA-1 has long been part of the core infrastructure in Minnesota's APRS network. 

 KD0TGF-1 (near Waseca) made a big splash a couple of years ago when it appeared as a TX gateway. Today, however, it only exists as an -IS station -- not an RX-only gateway.

  New additions 

  Aside from W0NE-4 near Winona, the only other new additions recently have been the two gateways in the northern part of the area: KE0YJJ and AB0KT-10. 

KE0YJJ current coverage

 KE0YJJ supplements coverage of Hwy 52 and Hwy 14, and the approaches to Rochester. It handles some of the traffic from the big Rochester gateways. If there were a reliable TX gateway in Rochester, this gateway could provide useful "last heard" information for RF-based messaging. 

AB0KT-10 current coverage

 AB0KT-10 supplements coverage of I-35 and the rural areas south of the metro. If we were ever to get a reliable TX gateway in the southern exurbs of the metro, this gateway would become a fairly valuable extension of the metro's coverage. 

W0NE-4 current coverage

 Again, W0NE-4 is actually just across the border in Wisconsin. But it provides significant coverage in Minnesota. Frankly, I'm puzzled as to why someone thought another digipeater was needed in this area. N9QIP-9, N0EXE-3, and KC9DGP-10 have existed nearby for several years already. But, this is the nature of the "anarchic" model, I suppose. W0NE-4 has very nice RX from the south-east to the south-west of its location, but not so much to the north. It offers potential to tie in some southern WI and northern IA traffic to the Winona-based infrastructure. It also offers some additional redundancy to the area's coverage of I-90, and it has a reliable path to gateway with the nearby N0OWT-3 to provide RF-based messaging to a wider area than N0OWT-3 could by itself. 

 Possibilities for expansion 

 While things don't seem to change much in this part of the state, I think there's some "low-hanging fruit" in terms of additions that could considerably change things for the better. None of these things require big towers or expensive hardware. Simple 10w home stations with a gain ground-plane antenna on the roof of a two-story building would suffice. In rural areas, the noise floor is much lower and low-power stations are more practical.

•  A TX gateway in Wabasha would provide coverage to an area that the Faribault gateway fails to reach, and that is only on the fringe of the Rochester digipeaters. A modest station would provide RF-based messaging to about half of Wabasha County -- a nice boost for EmComm services. Even more interesting is that it would cover the new N0HOY-11 digipeater in Wisconsin. This would RF-link the growing network between Menomonie and Eau Claire, strengthening the nascent growth into something more robust. On top of all that, it would expand the coverage from the Winona-based infrastructure, serving as a kind of "remote receive site" that could also transmit messaging locally. 

• An RX-only gateway in Owatonna would provide some additional gating capacity for the digipeaters, as well as filling in some of the gap between Faribault and Albert Lea. RF-based messaging would improve due to the "last heard" data this gateway would provide to the big TX gateways in Faribault and Albert Lea. In a case like this, having a much smaller coverage area than the big Faribault I-Gate would be a benefit. The packet collisions that would negatively affect the larger gateway would be eliminated, resulting in more reliable coverage -- especially for low-power stations.

• Adding a small TX gateway in Mankato would be a big plus for the network as a whole. Mankato also has enough local traffic, including that from motorists, to justify its own gateway. Even a low-power gateway could leverage the N0BPA-1 digipeater to provide RF-based messaging over a wide area. There's little reason to rely on Faribault for this, when a local solution is so easy. 

• A digipeater in Cannon Falls would expand the coverage of the Welch TX gateway, KC0FXY-2. It would also have a second path to gateway through the Northfield i-Gate (AB0KT-10). By leveraging KC0FXY-10, RF-based messaging would improve, and there would likely be a little traffic from the metro digi/gateways reaching the area. Having solid coverage for Hwy 52 north of Rochester is a worthy goal. 

• Preston is pretty isolated, so a digipeater wouldn't make much sense. A TX gateway there would merely create an island of coverage along Hwy 52 south of Rochester, but it would also provide the basis for further growth. For example, even a small digipeater in the Chatfield area would be able to reach Preston, and improve the coverage of the Rochester fringes. Even a 50w station with a 100-foot tower would struggle to reach the rest of the network reliably, so some kind of "relay" would still be needed. And we could wait forever for such a fancy station to be put on-air, when two modest stations would do the job immediately. Add another modest digipeater near Spring Valley, and decent coverage is expanded 30 miles from Rochester.

•  A modest digipeater just to the west of Albert Lea could make up for the coverage limitations of the NX0P gateway in that direction. This would help eliminate the gap that exists along I-90 from I-35 to Fairmont. This assumes, of course, that it can reach NX0P to gate those packets.

 As I previously said, most of these targets for growth wouldn't provide huge local benefits. Forward-thinking hams, however, should see the benefit to connecting their local area to the wider network. Isn't there value to providing a service to motorists passing through that local area, for example? Isn't there value in providing a link in the chain that connects operators outside of your local area to each other? 

 While local emergency management staff in these areas probably wouldn't look at APRS as part of their tool kit currently, once that infrastructure is established and proven, it's much easier to show the potential. The ability to send messages to mobile units and field stations, even when landlines and cell service go down, is compelling. And the network of digipeaters means that a single station can reach far beyond the radius of a single FM voice repeater. There would be no constant repetition trying to understand stations out in the weeds, as with a voice repeater. Especially in rural areas, establishing the location of a hazard or field station can be challenging since there are few cross-streets as a reference point. APRS solves that problem handily. 

 Having more gateways spread out across the area is a great solution for local internet outages in emergency situations. While a local gateway can lose its connection to the -IS, other digipeaters can still connect it to areas where internet access is still functioning. Messaging and services remain intact. It's a network, not a single station.

 None of this is particularly expensive. Second-hand TNCs, such as the Kantronics KPC-3, are plentiful. New and powerful TNCs, such as the Microsat WX-3-in-1, are under $150. Virtually everyone already has a 2M radio to connect to a TNC. It could be as simple as connecting a spare HT to a Microsat, and adding an exterior antenna. No dedicated computer is needed. 

 Summary 

 While southern Minnesota has a sturdy base of infrastructure, it could benefit from increased gating capacity that is more evenly distributed. There are large gaps in coverage, as there are elsewhere in the state. The key is to look beyond the selfish local interests and see APRS as a network, rather than something akin to a local voice repeater. Running a gateway or digipeater is far easier than running a repeater, and is a practical way for new entrants to the hobby to make their mark and contribute to a wider effort. Even senior hams find exploring a new aspect of the hobby to be intriguing. 

 In addition, APRS can put your community on the map -- literally. Information about the local repeater can be broadcast (see NX0P as an example of this). Bulletins can be created to announce club meetings and events. Objects can be created to show where Field Day events or club meetings are taking place. The local digipeater or gateway will also show up on VHF propagation maps. It's much more than tracking vehicles.

KD0TLS: More RX-only antipathy

  I wrote previously about strong opinions regarding RX-only gateways. I continue to believe these positions are based on false premises. The charge is always the same: RX-only gateways "break" APRS for RF-only users. 

 Here are some posts from the APRS group, featuring this antipathy. The thread can be found here. 

 Here is the original post, in which AK9RT notes that he's not receiving "acks" (acknowledgements) from his messages sent to WXBOT. Notice the total lack of mention of RX-only I-Gates, or even the software client he's using. Click on the image to see a larger version.

So... Kurt isn't getting "acks". 

• Has he set up his client to request them? Certainly, someone can set up their station to not do that using a common client such as APRSIS32. 

• Is Kurt getting replies over RF or the -IS? He doesn't say, only that he's getting replies but no "acks". 

• Do we know there is even an RX-only gateway in AK9RT's area? Not from his post, and no one in the thread bothers to check out that fact.

 These seem like reasonable questions. Instead, RX-only gateways are instantly fingered as the only possible cause. This sets off a venting of spleen, and by the end of the 'discussion' it doesn't even matter if RX-only gateways are actually involved. Their mere existence somewhere on the planet has "broken APRS". 

 False premise 

 Reading through these responses, which I will soon present, you will see a curious false premise -- or more than one. 

 First, the assumption being made is that someone putting up an RX-only I-Gate somehow, in some mysterious manner, prevents anyone else from setting up a TX gateway. Rather than hating on some operator who made a contribution to their local network by running an RX-only gateway, why doesn't AK9RT -- or some other RF-only operator in the area -- set up a TX gateway? 

 This is a serious question. If someone is willing to rant about the lack of TX gateways in their area, I'd like to know what the obstacle is for that individual to establish one. Because that may be why someone has chosen to set up an RX-only gateway instead of a TX gateway. Is it too hard? Do they lack the equipment? Or is it simply easier to scapegoat the operator of an RX-only I-Gate?

 Here in the metro, we have both TX and RX gateways. As I mentioned in my previous post, some of these RX-only gateways in MN provide sterling service by gating traffic that otherwise would never go the -IS. When I set up my home TX gateway years ago, there was an RX-only I-Gate less than a mile away. Remarkably, this didn't dissuade me from setting up a TX gateway. This underlying premise that an RX-only I-Gate's existence precludes other amateurs from creating a TX gateway is false and ridiculous. 

 Second, the assumption being made is that anyone who sets up an RX-only I-Gate could, if they desired, set up a TX gateway instead. Apparently, these hams are spending their days rubbing their hands together in glee at the troubles they are causing for good, decent RF-only operators in the area. And probably twirling a handlebar moustache while wearing a black hat. 

 RX-only gateways are easier to set up. You can use an old analog scanner, and feed the audio into a computer. Or you can use an RTL-SDR receiver. Or an old rig with blown finals that still has a decent front end. 

 In fact, the more that you push the idea that making an RX-only gateway into a TX gateway is easy, the more that you indict RF-only operators who prefer to whinge about the lack of TX gateways rather than setting one up themselves. 

 Again, we come back to that peculiar arrogance of RF-only operators. It's someone else's job to make RF-only operation viable in their area, and they damn well better get on that quickly. If you don't have a TX gateway in your area to service your RF-only operation, don't direct your rage toward the person who took the time to set up an RX-only I-Gate. Yeah, we all know that you're Very Important and all that. Maybe a Big Player like you should set up a TX gateway. Ah, it's not so important now, is it? 

 Third, the assumption being made is that access to the APRS-IS is itself worthless. Frankly, I'm baffled by clowns who clearly have internet access to post their screeds on a forum, but who claim to have no ability to access the -IS. It's absolutely possible to transmit your messages over RF, and receive responses over the -IS from an RX-only gateway. 

2024-06-22 11:22:11 CDT: KD0TLS-7>APWW11,WIDE2-2,qAR,W0YC-5::MPAD     :riseset{YF}
2024-06-22 11:22:13 CDT: KD0TLS-7>APWW11,TCPIP*,qAC,T2DENMARK::MPAD     :ackUF}YF
2024-06-22 11:22:48 CDT: KD0TLS-7>APWW11,TCPIP*,qAC,T2DENMARK::MPAD     :ackUF}YF
2024-06-22 11:23:23 CDT: KD0TLS-7>APWW11,TCPIP*,qAC,T2DENMARK::MPAD     :ackUF}YF 

Golly gosh, here I sent message to MPAD over RF, 

and received an ack over the -IS. W0YC-5 isn't an RX-only gateway,

but it didn't send the "ack" over RF, either.

 The responses

 First, let's look at Lynn Deffenbaugh. He created the APRSIS32 software, and should know that it's entirely possible to send a message without requesting an ack. Rather than explore that angle, he mounts an attack on RX-only gateways in general -- without even establishing if an RX-only I-Gate is at fault: 

 Here we see that RX-only gateways don't provide "acks" over RF, so they are BAD. While I was writing this post, I sent an message to MPAD using the -IS, and I received an "ack" over the -IS. So, there's nothing inherent in the -IS that prevents "acks". I sent a message over RF, and received an "ack" over the -IS. It's very rare that I don't receive an "ack" over the -IS when I send an RF-based message.

 Perhaps AK9RT was in some remote place without any internet access. He didn't state that, however. If there's an RX-only gateway within reach of his station, it seems unlikely that an internet connection is completely lacking. Still, let's look at the ordeal that this RX-only gateway -- which we don't even know actually exists, mind you -- has inflicted on this poor soul. He was able to get information from the internet by using APRS. Now, there's only two ways this could have happened: either he was using RF-only and got a response over RF, or he had some access to the -IS to get his response. In either case, he should have received an "ack". Blaming an RX-only gateway would be farther down my list of possible causes. 

 Still, get ready for a guy in France who says that RX-only I-Gates should be "suppressed" -- whatever that means. 

 Here again, we see the thought expressed that operators of RX-only I-Gates are stupid and don't understand APRS. Matthieu never really explains how RX-only gateways prevent the Good Guys (RF-only operators) from establishing TX gateways. It's just accepted as an article of faith. No word on why Matthieu refuses to set up a TX gateway on his own to solve this problem. Nope, we just need to "definitely suppress" the RX-only gateways and all of our problems will be solved. 

 Okay, now let's look at another rant from someone who can't really pinpoint RX-only I-Gates as the source of his problems. But gosh darn it, Chris doesn't have reliable APRS coverage so it's completely safe to blame RX-only gateways for this problem. Poor Chris "can't rely on the internet" -- but he can use the internet to post his rant. 

 Frankly, it seems to me that Chris lives in an area with very spotty coverage in general. How he manages to point the finger at RX-only gateways -- which he fails to mention even exist in his area -- is a mystery. Here's the train of 'logic' being employed: 

• Someone, somewhere else, failed to get an "ack", though their message got through and they got a response. 

• This 'proves' that RX-only gateways are destroying messaging where he lives. Because... if you can't get an an "ack", the message will be sent more often and this will "reduce traffic"? Huh? 

• If you send a message over RF and get an answer, "the system is useless to any user". See, the "ack" is the really important thing, I guess. 

• Again, we can only ponder why Chris doesn't set up a TX gateway. Obviously, this is very important to him. He needs an "ack" over RF, because he "can't rely on the internet". He seems to think that the lack of a TX gateway is discouraging the use of APRS in his "fringe area". He can't point to an RX-only gateway in his area that's causing his problems, but he's completely sure that one must be at fault. 

 Summary 

 Over and over again, we see RF-only operators who believe that they are the only "legitimate" users of APRS. Someone else should cater to them. Doesn't the world know that they are Very Important? They can't be bothered to contribute to their local network. Their mere presence is a gift to the community. One of the Little People with less importance should make the effort to set up a TX gateway.

 Also once again, we see the underlying premise that any mingling of the internet and amateur radio is some kind of perversion. A Very Important operator may stoop to using the -IS, but only if RF is used on both ends. 

 If you choose to operate in RF-only mode on APRS, then don't blame people who have chosen to accommodate -IS stations. Why are you sending RF-based messaging when you know full well that it isn't viable in your area?

 Oddly, we never hear from this faction complaining about how digipeaters fail to provide an "ack". Digipeaters are Unquestionably Good. We never hear these people demand that a digipeater be turned into a TX gateway. Nope, amateurs that operate digipeaters are saintly and can do no wrong. It's those evil hams that operate RX-only gateways that require us to hate them. Because "acks" over RF are what APRS is all about... but digipeaters are cool. 

 Since many 'readers' have now convinced themselves that I think digipeaters are gateways, I will clarify my point -- which these same people will doubtlessly ignore. 

 If I send a message over RF, and it's digipeated but fails to reach a gateway, do I blame the digipeater for this failure to send an "ack"? No, because that's not what digipeaters do. Yet, it's completely reasonable to blame an RX-only I-Gate for a failure to send an "ack" over RF? That's not what RX-only gateways do. And... since we're making RF-based "acks" the entire basis of APRS here, shouldn't we be equally unreasonable and blame a digipeater for failing to do something it can't possibly do? If an RX-only gateway, through some mystical means we can't explain, prevents a TX gateway from appearing, why doesn't the presence of a digipeater also prevent a TX gateway from appearing? Why do digipeaters get a free pass in this completely warped view of network infrastructure? Why is this magical thinking only acceptable in the one case, but not the other?

 Frankly, I see RX-only gateways as part of a well-balanced network. They don't contribute to congestion, they provide crucial "last heard" data for TX gateways to send responses, they gate digipeated packets that would otherwise be lost in the ether, and they pass messages on to TX I-gates to send a reply. It's not a binary proposition. 

 I would never discourage anyone from setting up an RX-only gateway in the metro. It's a great way for people to dip their toes into the APRS waters. Many RX-only gateways have come and gone here over the years, and the vast majority of these operators end up becoming regulars in the community. Casting these amateurs as villains and morons is par for the course in this hobby, but it's hardly constructive or a positive promotion of APRS. 

 

KD0TLS: license number update 5/24

  May 2024 was another month of declines in amateur radio license numbers. The only bit of good news is that the number of Extra Class licenses has slowly increased since the start of the year, even though these gains were whittled away somewhat in 5/24. 

 National 

 We ended May with virtually 2800 fewer licensed amateurs than we started the month with (2798, to be exact). This is, by far, the largest monthly drop so far this year. Previously, March 2024 had that dubious distinction with 1682 fewer licenses. 

 Well over 1200 of that decline came from the Technician Class (1249 exactly). And nearly 800 came from the General Class (791). It's the first time this year that we've seen a net decline of Technician Class licenses over 1000. It's also the first time we've seen a net loss of General Class licenses over 500. In 2023, it wasn't particularly unusual to see gains of a dozen or so in the General Class over the course of a month. 

 The rapid decline in General Class numbers undermines the glib 'explanations' that were previously tossed around when the declines were limited to Techs. For those who are already pointing to upgrades as an 'explanation', the numbers don't bear that out. 

 Nationally, we've gained 317 Extra Class license-holders since the start of the year. But there are now 1549 fewer Generals than we began the year with. So...yes, a few hundred amateurs have upgraded from General to Extra so far this year. But more than 1200 others simply let their license lapse. 

 Since the end of 2022, the hobby has lost 20.6k licenses. 

 Minnesota 

 The numbers for Minnesota have largely stabilized, after losing more than 1300 over the last year. The totals still decline every month, but 11.3k is the general area. So far this year, the net decline has been 113 licenses. 

 In May, MN ended the month with 22 fewer licenses than it started with: 10 Technicians, 8 Advanced, 4 General and 1 Novice lost -- with a gain of 1 Extra Class license. It's very similar to last month's decline of 17 licenses. 

 California 

 CA had a slightly worse than average month for license numbers, with a net decline of 517 amateurs. Of that figure, 87 were General Class, and 336 were Technician Class in May 2024. Another 70 were Advanced Class and 13 were Extra Class. There were no gains in any Class. 

 So far this year, the licensed amateur population of California has declined by a net 2017 licenses. 60 of that figure are Extra Class, 334 are General Class, and 1410 are Technician Class. 

 Over the last twelve months, the state has lost about 4000 net licenses, with about 2900 of that being Techs. 

 Summary 

 2021 was the last year that amateur radio saw an increase in national license numbers -- a gain of 7.2k. That was a smaller gain than 2020 (9k). General Class licenses increased by 4k in 2021. We're not even halfway through 2024, and the total number of General Class license-holders has dropped by 1500. And the number of Technicians nationally has declined by over 16.3k since the end of 2022. 

 Some will point to the current total of 748k and say, "That's still a lot". It's where we were at when 2017 ended. For those who think that 748k is "still a lot", I invite them to think about what figure would no longer be "a lot". 500k? 100k? 10k? Hey, 10k is still a "a lot", right? I say this because this is where the glib denial of the reality will bring us. 

 The Technician Class stopped growing years ago. Now, the General Class has stopped growing. The Extra Class has grown only at a glacial pace, and that growth is slowing down now. 

 This doesn't necessarily mean "the hobby is dying". It means it's not growing any more, certainly. The best advice I can offer is for senior hams (i.e. those licensed more than ten years) to engage in some serious self-reflection regarding how we attract and retain new hams. If that self-reflection causes you to double-down on EmComm (When All Else Fails) and HF operation being the very definition of the hobby, you are embracing a losing narrative. Yes, you will still attract a small number. But you will lose far more in the current technological context. 

 We are rapidly moving into a state where cell phones can text with satellites. Rather than dream up fantasy scenarios where disaster strikes AND satellites are down, we should realistically assess that most EmComm situations currently involve loss of comms for hours, not days. 

 We are already seeing places like Puerto Rico opting for GMRS over amateur radio for local comms. Why? Because the entire extended family can operate on a single license without an exam. And most don't see much value in talking to someone in Romania or Brazil when things get bad. They want to know which local roads are open, if their friends and family are okay, and what the local situation really is. They aren't going to get that from some ARES net. And they don't need to know which local amateur repeater is on-air in which band. They are already familiar with (and proud of) their local GMRS repeater -- which is likely to be solar-powered. 

 Local comms rule every time. We can continue to look down on these people who don't know the 20M FT8 frequency, or we can make them allies. Guess which path Puerto Rican hams have chosen. Yep, it's condescension and elitism.  Instead, people should get their General license -- it's not that hard, after all. You can reach farther (nobody cares), and talk to Smart People (who know nothing of your local situation). And you can join ARES nets where people are far more concerned about the quality of your station than what you have to say. Oh, and your grandma can't talk to you, because she's not smart enough to hang with the "real hams". 

 We're pricing ourselves out of the EmComm market. Yet, we're still pitching EmComm scenarios that exclude Technicians. And we continue to pretend that there are millions eager to get in on this "action". We've lied to ourselves for so long that we can't objectively see the reality.