In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"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???

No, I'm simply pointing out the facts. There was lots of growth for about 17
years after WW2 (~8% per year!) then it stopped dead at the beginning of 1963.
Did not pick up again until about 1970, which was soon after IL was in place.

The numbers prove it. Do you have any conflicting data to present?

I don't think so ...

Based on what? In the mid-'60s there were a few years when the numbers actually
declined.

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

Immediately after WW2, yes. But after the restructuring of 1951, most newcomers
were people too young to have been in either war.

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 ...

You need to read up on the history, Carl. There was no boom in the '60s. You
are thinking of the '70s, which is when the things you describe happened on a
wide scale. The mid-1970s, in fact, when license requirements were the
toughest.

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

I'll take that as "NONE"

... used it a lot from the sailboat in the early 90's ...

Ten years ago. My point is that it's a rare thing these days, supplanted by
PACTOR and PSK-31.

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.

Of course - but at the same time, really new modes and maximum performance are
not explored unless they fit within the "SSB/PC" mindset.

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.

There's a lot more to a ham rig than modulating and demodulating, though.

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 ...

Which may or may not optimize performance.

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.

That's good.

However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,

So do most of us.

so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule.

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the challenges of homebrewing in
our "technical service" called the ARS.

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.

Of course. But like many other projects, it's on the classic "round tuit"
priority list.

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 ...

Exactly. And to go a lot faster, you need a new radio, and we're back to
belling the cat again.

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.

So how would you have implented it?

It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds

Speed. 20 wpm.

The ARRL's 1963 proposal was for no additional code testing at all. FCC, the
expert agency, wanted 20 wpm for all privileges.

for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ...

That's simply not true.

The final plan, as enacted Nov 22, 1968, made the lower 25 kHz of 80, 40, 20
and 15 Extra-only territory. That's 100 kHz. The Extra-only 'phone territory of
that time was 3800-3825 and 21250-21275. Only 50 kHz, on two bands (75 and 15).
On 40 and 20, Advanceds had all 'phone privs.

The original announced plan was for the lower 50 kHz of the four bands to be
Extra-only (total 200 kHz), but that was quietly dropped in 1969.

The biggest difference in 'phone privileges was between General and Advanced:

General: 3900-4000, 7250-7300, 14275-14350, 21350-21450 (total 325 kHz)

Advanced: 3825-4000, 7200-7300, 14200-14350, 21275-21450 (total 600 kHz)

IOW, upgrading from General to Advanced in those days got you 275 more kHz of
'phone (almost double) and no additional CW on HF. And all it took was a
written test.

Upgrading from Advanced to Extra got you 100 kHz more CW and only 50 kHz more
'phone. Written and code test.

Thus, the argument that the Extra was "for privs that were primarily non-Morse
...."

is simply not valid.

It is left to the reader to compare the differences at various points since
1969.

btw, I passed Advanced in 1968 at the age of 14 and Extra in 1970 at the age of
16. So even those old tests were not impossible or even that difficult if one
had a little knowledge and skill.

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.

Which means you agree with the philosophy but not the details.

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).

Not just newcomers - everyone.

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 ...

I don;t expect you to. I'm merely pointing out that there ARE folks who would
eliminate the nonphone subbands.

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.

That's not the question I asked.

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.

They want to determine policy.

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 ...

I think we're stuck with a full NPRM cycle.

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.)

Still doesn't answer the question. ARRL is, by far, the biggest VEC and they
abstained.

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.

Sure. But it adds a big step to the project.

In the bad old days there were basically two steps: Mechanical construction,
then wiring. PCB construction reduced the wiring but added the step of PCB
fabrication and increased the toolkit needed. Adding programmability means yet
another step and an even bigger toolkit.

Hams need small, easy, quick projects to start with. That's why the simplicity
of CW is a real asset.

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 ...

Sure. But the beginner isn't going to start out at that level. The question is
one of growth path.

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 ...

They need practical examples, too. Completed projects that really work and are
accessible through the amateur literature.

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

That's true on both sides of the code test debate.

73 de Jim, N2EY