Sidchase3 wrote:

What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10, 50,
100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the ARRL is
right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there.

I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful
interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory bodies
around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good long
time.

But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a
vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I can't
help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me by.

Thoughts?

-------------
Jeff Wilson
KG6RIF
Los Angeles, California









It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic
programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that
saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave station and
it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought. Yes,
there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just overboard in
their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station
unique.

I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong
viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and views
out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to own
the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent corporation"
was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or socially.
Political correctness would take a back seat.

The FCC ban on domestic broadcasting will have to be junked first. I
think that if a station like WBCQ came along owned by somebody who had a
lot of money to challenge the domestic broadcasting ban in court
(resources Allan Weiner doesn't have) the Supreme Court would have to
rule the ban unconstitutional. Right now American SW stations are just
sort of ignoring the ban and the FCC has taken a don't ask don't tell
attitude. Nobody's actually challenged the ban in court, mainly because
it would take millions for legal fees.

And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the Aryan
nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all sorts
of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's, some
academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access problem
since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access to the
particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations don't
like that.

Many nations censor the internet or severely limit access. Fidel Castro
recently ruled that only people approved by the Cuban govt (ie him) can
access the internet in Cuba. China has extensive limits on the internet
too. We all know the famous quote that the network interprets censorship
as damage and routes around it, well that's not entirely true.

The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples hands. In
an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital
reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the
dissemination of text as well as audio.

Anyway, something to think about.

-Bill

I think the main problem is that the components to make such a reciever
are so expensive that it automatically prices the radio at $150 or
above. When the price of the components goes down, radios such as this
will become feasible.