In article , "Mark Little"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Mark Little"

writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
snip
The idea that non-amateurs "not understanding" amateur radio is
false
and little more than an attempt at rationalization of their own
ignorance.

The idea that one who has no experience in using amateur radio has no
real feel for amateur radio is no falsehood.

Nonsense. There is nothing in life that is so insular that one cannot get
a
"real feel" of it by doing similar things.

The question, then, is "what is a similar thing?"

What would be similar to, say:

- having a baby
According to a woman I know, passing a kidney stone. She has done both so is
probably in a good situation to know. I will take that one on faith as
neither seems that appealing.

Those two are similar only in the pain experienced and the relief when it's
over.
But the joy of a new baby is not part of the kidney stone episode.

- running a marathon
"Hitting the wall" and the physical tribulations associated with a marathon
are not limited to running. If you have done other activities that stress
the body, then you are in a position to get the "feel". In my case, that is
just running to the end of the street. ;-)

There's a lot more to the marathon than "hitting the wall", which doesn't
happen
to all marathoners anyway. (I've run two marathons and numerous shorter races,
btw)

- playing a musical instrument really well
Anyone who has had to practice long and hard to achieve any hand skill will
know the satisfaction that comes with doing something well. I can't play the
guitar "really well", but I think it is safe to say I have a feel for what
it would be like to be able to do so.

So playing a guitar well is similar to playing a guitar really well...

(others are invited to add to the list)
Jumping off a cliff - Never done it, but I have a good feel for what
happens - At the bottom, you go splattt!!!!!

HAW!

I've worked in commercial/scientific radio communications as well as
being
an Amateur and there is a great deal of similarity between the
operations -
there are licences, there are regulations, there are serious
conversations,
there are "rag chew" conversations, there is problem solving and
information
exchange. These is even a "siblinghood" (is that the PC equivalent of
"brotherhood"? ;-) ) amongest the operators.

There are also big differences.

What exactly are you suggesting is so different in AR that it is
completely
alien from any other activity?

Several things:

1) Hams have a level of freedom pretty much unmatched in other services.
Wide
variety of modes, bands, technologies, and activities. No channelization
or
requirement to use certain types of equipment.

I suggest that you look at the FCC page and search for "experimental
licence". These couple of snippets may be of interest to show its breadth:

"Any person or entity--corporation, individual, etc. that is not a foreign
government or representative of a foreign government may obtain an
experimental license."

"Any frequency allocated to non-Government or Government use in the Table
of Frequency Allocations may be assigned under the Experimental Radio
Service, except frequencies exclusively allocated to the passive services."

Use of non-approved equipment is also permitted with this licence.

Not the same thing! Each experimental license is granted for a specific
purpose,
isn't it? The applicant has to make application for a specific reason, not
general
experimentation, and the license is limited to the specific experimentation
applied for.
It's not a general-purpose thing like a ham license.

How many experimental licenses are currently issued by FCC? There are over
682,000
US ham licenses issued to individuals.

How many new experimental licenses were issued by FCC last year? FCC issued
over 20,000 new ham licenses in 2003.

2) Hams are almost all self-funded and noncommercial, using their own
equipment on their own time.

Agreed, but again this is not unique. Plenty of people including CB
operators and pleasure marine radio operators in the same boat (pun
intended).

Those services are not about "radio for its own sake" and allow only a very
limited choice of channels and modes.

3) [this it the really big one] Amateur radio is, at its core, radio
communication for its own sake. To other services, radio is but a means to
an end, but to hams the medium really is a big part of the message. Or to
put
it another way, the ham's journey is as important, if not more important,
than the destination.

You are incorrect to assert that the medium is not important to others,
especially in the scientific community. Radio propagation research by
definition is interested in the medium.

Only to find out how it works.

It is also misleading to imply that the majority of Amateur have the medium
as the primary focus of their activities. The majority of Amateurs use
commercial equipment and spend the majority of their time chin-wagging.
From their conversations, it is obvious that the conversation is more import
than
the medium.

If that were true, most of those conversations would have moved to other means
of communication long ago.

This is why certain things from other services don't apply to hams.

The person watching TV usually doesn't care how the signal gets to the
set - VHF, UHF, terrestrical, satellite, analog, digital, cable, fiber,
whatever. All
the TV viewer cares about is how good the picture, sound and program are.

While the person who watches TV may have no idea how it works, there is a
complete army of people behind that tube that do know how it works and why
it works.

That's true, but it's not the point. The TV viewer and the ham are both the
"end users",
but it makes no difference to the TV viewer whether the program got to him/her
by radio,
wire, etc. There *is* a difference to the ham whether the QSO is by radio or
landline.

If one were to subtract the number of hams who cannot even fix a
simple fault in their commerical rig, the odds would not be much different.

That's not the "how" I was referring to. A ham cares that it's "communication
by radio" - the TV viewer doesn't.

The military communications folks don't care how the messages are carried,
just
so the messages get where they need to be, when they need to be there,
without
the bad guys knowing about them.

I'll bet its fair to say that most Amateurs do not understand how Packet,
PACTOR or even just their rigs work.

I disagree. But that's not the point.

They simply plug in the boxes and off they go.

Again, a ham cares that it's "communication by radio"

Do you know or care how your email and postings get to and from your
computer?

Actually, I do as I run my own servers.

Exception that proves the rule. And once it leaves your servers?

If you're like 99.99% of the online population, it's not an issue as long
as it happens.

This is also the case for many Amateurs. Most would not know how their
current rig works and they would neither have the expertise or equipment to
find anything but the most trivial of faults.

Again, not the point. A ham cares that it's "communication by radio", but most
email users don't care if the medium is wire, fiber, etc.

Heck, many if not most cellphone users don't even think in terms of
"radio" -
the cellphone to them is a telephone without wires, that's all. (In fact I
have had people tell me that a cellphone is *not* a radio!)

As I said most Amateurs don't know how packet works or even how their Yaesu
works.

How do you know that for sure?

Under this defintion, most Amateurs aren't amateurs either. If one
goes into particular instances, I've fixed radios for more than one full
call that could not find that the battery wire had broken. Such anecdotes
may be amusing, but have little value in the big picture.

Point is they at least knew it was a radio.

The radio amateur does radio, for the most part, for purely emotional
reasons.
IOW, because it's fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc. "Radio for
it's own sake".

Certainly in the area I work, I have seen the scientists knock back very
large amounts of money because it didn't have a research component that they
found "fun, rewarding, challenging, educating, etc."

But only as an expedient. Not as a rule.

This is why modes like Morse code, AM voice and Baudot FSK RTTY continue
in use in amateur radio. Hams like them. They're fun, and they work.

Morse - still used commercially, in the forces and aviation (ident calls).

Some will argue that point!

AM voice - still used in broadcasting.
FSK RTTY - still used as anyone with a communications rig can tell you.

Baudot! Not just FSK

None of these are unique to AR.

No, they're not. But their choice in other services is driven by considerations
other than what the operators like. That's the point.

There is no doubt that these modes work and "fun" to some people. This is
true even if you are a commercial operator. There are plenty of people who
actually enjoy their work.

Sure, but as a rule they are not the one making the choice.

BTW, not all hams like these modes. Many people don't like Morse, many also
don't like AM because of its bandwidth, especially in the lower bands and
most Amateurs don't use RTTY with or without the clunking teleprinter.

By choice - that's the point!

Ignorance would be to
assume that because one has experience in another service, that all of
his experience in that service directly transfers to amateur radio.

This is more accurate as there are some subtle differences between even
very similar activities.

And some very big differences. Much of what is done in other radio
services
does not transfer to amateur radio at all. For example, every other radio
service I know of seeks to eliminate the need for a skill in the operation
of
the radio equipment. They think in terms of "user", not "radio operator".
And
given their constraints, it may make sense to do so, because it is usually
less
expensive to buy sophisticated equipment than to pay a skilled radio
operator.

How many Amateurs still neutralise their power amplifiers?

I do.

No many. Why?
Because they have decided to buy (in most cases not build) more
sophisticated equipment that reduces the skill required to operate the
radio.

I build my ham rigs, either from scratch or kits.

There is no difference.

Yes, there is.

Neutralization is an alignment adjustment, not part of operating the rig.

I don't know too many Amateurs who go to buy
a rig and want the one that is the hardest to use.

Not the point. Modes like ALE and conventions such as channelization have
not had much acceptance in amateur radio, even though very widely used in
other services.

But to hams, radio operating skill is the whole point.

Unsustainable if you listen to the bands.

I do, and that's why I make the observation.

Most people do not even comply
with the statuatory requirements for identification, let alone push the
envelope of operating skills.

Where have you noticed that? I see just the opposite on the bands and modes I
use.

Are you suggesting that randomly monitoring the Amateur Bands for a few
hours would show a very high level of operating skill? I wouldn't bet the
farm on that one, would you?

No, I'm saying that hams value operating skills, even if they don't always have
the highest level of them. Someone who plays a guitar for fun usually values
skill at doing so, even if they're not as good as the guy on the CD.

As I said, AR is by no means "unique" in what it provides and there are many
people in the radio field, even if they don't hold an AR licence that would
have a "really good feel" of what the Amateur Serice is all about bases on
their other experiences.

Maybe. But in general I'd disagree.

It concerns me when Amateurs attempt to tell others that AR is "unique" and
that a non-amateur could never underestand what it is all about, because all
it does is reduce credibilty.

If amateur radio is not unique, why should it exist?

73 de Jim, N2EY