On May 5, 8:38�pm, AF6AY wrote:

One thing that should NOT continue is to keep thinking in the
paradigms of pre-WWII 'radio' as is often presented in amateur
radio magazines.

What paradigms do you mean?

�Technology has gone through several plateau jumps
of advancement since that long-ago time.

In some areas, that's true, but in others (such as simple practical HF
antennas and transmission lines) things haven't changed very much.

�Fantasies of some amateur
radio licensees are still rooted to back then. �Those are lost in
the reality of today's radio capabilites and uses. �The general
public has its own fantasies and it is foolish to attempt trying
to tell them other fantasies.

Could you give some specific examples of the paradigms you mean, the
"plateau jumps" in technology, and the fantasies you describe?

Amateur radio is a HOBBY. �Let's try to focus on that.

Amateur radio isn't *just* a hobby, though. The record of public
service communication by radio amateurs shows there is a lot more to
it, to give just one example.

Model vehicles are a hobby for others. �The Academy of Model
Aeronautics doesn't pretend to advance the state of the art of
aviation but it was successful in lobbying for a hundred
frequency channels for radio-control two decades ago.

Let's consider that idea in detail...

Model control radio frequencies consist of those 100 channels near 70
MHz. Power output is limited to 1 watt and the transmitting antenna
can be no larger than a quarter-wave monopole.

Model control isn't about using radio for its own sake, which IMHO is
the heart-and-soul of amateur radio. Model control is about using
radio for a single purpose, as a means to an end.

Does anyone think amateur radio should be limited by rules similar to
those for model control? Or that the kind of allocations given to
model-control enthusiasts would be adequate for amateur radio?

�Consider
that hobbyists are citizens and that the US government does
listen to its citizens. �Work from that basis.

It seems to me that you are saying that radio amateurs should not talk
about their roles in emergency communication (Hurricane Katrina, for
example), public service communication (New York City Marathon),
experimentation (K3TUP and cancer research), education (Space Shuttle
hams), etc. IOW, all that should be deemphasized and ignored.

It seems to me that you're saying we hams should define ourselves as
hobbyists *only*, and expect that to be the sole reason we have
amateur bands and FCC/ITU protection.

Is that correct?

Jim, N2EY