Steve Bonine wrote on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:18:53 EDT:

wrote:
How about this, for a two step approach? [to the issue of losing spectrum]

1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient"
about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and
keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could
experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate
interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information
encoding scheme without special authorization or STA.

How many people do you think would obtain this license? I don't see a
latent demand out there for authorization to experiment with modes that
require special authorization. I'm afraid that the actual result would
be only a tiny number of upgrades, which would serve as evidence that
the amateur radio service didn't need the spectrum it has now.

I suspect that Hans was doing some subtle leg-pulling. :-)

Otherwise I agree with you. There is a very small percentage
of licensed radio amateurs who do actual NEW system-technique
experimentation, despite the publicity that some get. The new
stuff is generally incorporated in a product to be sold.

Does the FCC actually monitor the HF bands, particularly the
ham bands? I have no idea other that two known possibilities:
NTIS EM Survey mobile station; FCC's own remote-operated
monitor stations...which might be all-HF. Amateurs are allocated
only a fraction of the HF spectrum and, to me, it is difficult to
envision the Commission monitoring just the ham bands. I would
say the Commission gets most of its input on use from citizens'
and special-interest groups' written text. I could be wrong.


Both of these ideas attempt to change behavior of the existing
populatiion of amateur radio operators. I think it's more important to
focus on ideas that expand the population of licensed operators by
attracting new people.

I wholeheartdly agree with that! Numbers of licensees are
rather obvious pointers and the FCC, as grantor of all civil
radio licenses, has that information first-hand. What many
overlook is that the FCC keeps tabs on all RF emitter use;
since they are obligated by law to serve all non-government
users, they have to do a balancing act to seek satisfactory
compromises on regulations, mitigation of interference.

Your focus tends to be showing the regulators that hams are technical
innovators, thus they deserve frequency allocations. My focus tends to
be increasing the overall population of the users to increase the usage
of our allocations, thus justifying them. Both of these techniques work
and can be used at the same time.

Steve, I'm going with yours. Hans' idea would make the job
of the VEC much more complex, increase the record-keeping task
at the Commission, and add quite a bit to existing Part 97
regulations. If the Amateur Radio Service got such a specific
"open-door to everything" license class, then it would set a
precedent for all other radio services. An end result would
be a decided loss of regulatory capability by the FCC in regards
to all civil radio users. The old days of user chaos in radio
might come again with that.

New developments have been made under existing regulations. In
actual practice, nearly all of new development of ALL radio is
done without any RF emission (through any antenna), including
reception testing (with/without mixing existing antenna with
new-method signals). That's part of what I did for work. Yes,
the "final test" is "on the air" but the probability of success
prior to that last test is so high it is almost a "sure thing."

I really think that the key is communications, or call it public
relations or marketing if you wish. It has always struck me as ironic
that hams, in a hobby that is basically communications, are generally
horrible communicators.

My observation for many years, too! :-) For decades, USA ham
radio has gotten news of "radio" from a single source: ARRL
publications. That's good and well-meaning, but a single
source for 700K amateur licensees? Work professionals who are
also licensed amateurs have a wealth of information at their
disposal in trade journals (most of them free) and publications
from other organizations (RSGB, for example) can be had. The
major source of news is still the ARRL. The USA might be
better served with a second source (at least).

We need to motivate existing hams to actually
participate in the hobby, and we need to get the message out to
potential new licensees that ham radio is an attractive leisure-time
activity for them.

I would suggest getting advice, even outright production,
from documentary film/TV makers. There's two groups of them:
general-coverage "broadcast" market; industry-specific. They
know their craft, can get the message through to viewers'
subconscious. They might not know all about ham radio but
most don't know details of what particular thing they are
producing for promotion. That's irrelevant since the
communication they do is to the viewer's mind, directly,
sometimes subliminally, without any need for radios or radio
operating skills or techniques. Those documentaries have
been ever-present in my lifetime so they would appear to
"always have been" to most others. Advertising is a sub-genre
of that documentary technique, very concentrated effort to
influence viewers/listeners with ideas...and those things
really WORK. All of us consumers have been influenced by
them, like it or not.

Outright production of documentaries might be out of the
question due to cost. Those folks are pros, not amateurs,
but they KNOW how to do it. The audio-visual impact of
their work is STRONG compared to paper mailings. Documentary
makers also have an ego as do all connected with "show
business." Some might be encouraged to talk about HOW they
do their thing, the good techniques, the bad techniques.
That might help the planning for an actual film/TV promotion
done for less cost. Not my thing but "my town" (L.A.) has
a major industry in film/TV production, tens of thousands
working in that. I've been acquainted with a few socially.

Easy for me to say . . . but I've not personally
been very successful at actually *doing* anything.

I disagree. I think you've DONE something. You've started
a ball rolling, you are aware and concerned. You CARE.
That's good in my opinion.

73, Len AF6AY