"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

I have AMTOR capability, but haven't hooked it up in the 3 years I've
been here in the new house ... used it a lot from the sailboat in the early
90's ...

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak. However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,
so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule. Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.
It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ... I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do. Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how
to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

I wasn't at the NCVEC meeting and am not privy to the discussion/intent
WRT this issue ... I won't presume to speak for Fred in any sort of
definitive, authoritative way ...

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

It is my understanding that there are 13 or 14 VECs in the NCVECs ... ARRL's
rep was there. My understanding is that there was NO opposition to the
NCVEC
petition being filed as written.

Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it
will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

The primary objective is to eliminate Morse testing ... we don't want to
be distracted or delayed by other non-NCI-core issues that will take
more time for the FCC to decide ...

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps
from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Read Roberts' Rules ... I think a lone abstention does not count as
opposition ... to oppose, the party in question would have had to
proactively vote "no." An abstention amounts to "I don't care one
way or the other on this issue." (Or perhaps, "I'm not *allowed* to
vote one way or the other," when the voter is someone's employee.)

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

The digital domain is moving closer and closer to the antennna ... folks who
want to design and build need to start thinking in new paradigms ... like "I
buy some off the shelf RF ICs, A/D and D/A converters and I hook them
up with an FPGA that I've programmed, maybe a uController ... or an
interface to a PC (maybe Ethernet) and I have a programmable radio that
can be whatever I want it to be ...

Folks just need to think in new paradigms ... unfortunately, that does not
seem
to be the strong suit of many present hams.

Carl - wk3c