On Apr 23, 2:18 pm, Steve Bonine wrote:

My focus tends to be increasing the overall population of the users
to increase the usage of our allocations, thus justifying them.

I'm not persuaded of the validity of that approach for a couple of
reasons.

1) There's no shortage of hams.

2) In many cases, simple "usage" has not been sufficient to retain an
allocation. Notice for example, television broadcasters (a much more
powerful 'lobby' than ham radio) has already been kicked off channels
70 through 83 and are in the process of being kicked off channels 52
through 69. In the near future television broadcasters will also lose
the heavily occupied VHF channels. If the politically and financially
powerful broadcasting industry could not retain those assignments, how
can hams even pretend to be able to make a case based on "population
of users" who are for the most part avocational users?

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:

Which means that 160, 10, 220 and all above 432 would no longer be
available for the use of SSB, DSB, AM, FM, RTTY, AMTOR, PACTOR, SSTV,
TV, PSK31, and CW. Plus considerable segments of the rest of the
amateur bands would lose those modes as well. Not by voluntarily
abandonment of old modes but by law.


Exactly. The point of the exercise is to precipitate a "crisis" or a
"challenge" similar to the "200-meters-and-down" event which is widely
claimed as the catalyst which launched the "golden age" of amateur
radio advancement.

I assume you are playing devil's advocate here Hans?

An artificial crisis could have some nasty unintended results, IMO. And
I don't buy that it was the crisis effect that stimulated innovation for
those Hams of days gone by anyway. What they did was discover certain
features of HF that were not already known. That isn't to downplay the
effort, that is just how things happen. If Hams weren't confined there,
someone else probably would have eventually.

If we eliminate everything but new(er) modes from 160 meters, are
major discoveries going to come out of it? Not likely. I'm also trying
to imagine someone getting fined by th eFCC for using an "old mode" -
say a 16 year old one - on 160 meters. Just too complex a schem for my
taste.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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

On Apr 23, 5:45 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


I assume you are playing devil's advocate here Hans?


Not really devils advocate, but certainly you can see that some points
are overstated for effect. Hopefully this stimulates some thinking
outside the old comfortable paradigms we might hold.

I'll readily admit that some of my details are not well developed, and
maybe even "pin in the sky" in many respects. This is intentional to
"shock people out of their tradions" and focus on "things we've never
done before. Hopefully my wild-eyed thinking gets you all to see past
"the way we've done it before". At the same time, I'm not
interested in defending the PBI against "problems" and "we've never
done it that way" arguments, or pointless attention to incidental
details.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


The 1912 Hams were not put there as a challenge to get
them to innovate.

That's correct. It wasn't intended as a challenge to strengthen
Amateur Radio innovation. Quite the opposite! Hams were banished to
those "worthless" (as then considered) wavelengths below 200 meters to
get rid of them. Amateur radio was expected to be reduced to oblivion
by this move, but in one of those "nasty unintended consequences" you
mentioned, Amateur Radio became stronger than ever in consequence.

I'm only suggesting perhaps our service, in order to remain a viable
PICON entity, could benefit by another similar (but more deliberate,
less dibilitating) challenge. Don't get too hung up in the details,
but examine the notion from a higher altitude.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 23, 2:18 pm, Steve Bonine wrote:


How many people do you think would obtain this license?



Intially, I'm sure it would be a small number. Back in 1963 when I
obtained my Extra license, mine was the 48th issued in my district.
(Yes, they gave you a numbered certificate!). That was some 12 years
after the Extra came available.

But my Extra back then didn't carry any additional privileges, no
additional frequencies, no special call letters, nothing but a
numbered certificate.

In contrast, the "super-Extra" which I propose would carry with it a
reward in the freedom of almost unlimited experimental exploration,
and might appeal to that population of latent scientists and
communications inventors which we were often reminded of during the
run-up to the removal of the Morse exam. I obviously can't 'crystal
ball' how large that population is, but the 'opportunity cost' to find
out is certainly not prohibitive. Can't see where it would hurt us,
and the potential upside is exciting to me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Apr 21, 12:20�am, AF6AY wrote:
wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:00:34 EDT:

Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams?

I'd say no. At my test session of 25 Feb 07 there were at
least two teen-agers applying for an amateur radio license.
Given that I was born before the FCC was created, the "last"
generation would be at least three before me... :-)

Perhaps "last era" of Amateurs may have been more appropriate and
descriptive.

(And if we are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?)

What "danger?" I see none. But more on that later.

First, a disclaimer. I'm into my fifth decade of being a licensed
amateur, and figure I'm good for 3 or 4 more sunspot cycles of fun. I
love amateur radio.

Well, I've been a licensed commercial radio operator since
1956 and a licensed radio amateur since 2007. It has, in
between getting a whole new station set up, been fun.

But has been, nonetheless, NOT Amateur related. Trying to
parallel Amaeur and Commerical HF radio operation is the proverbial
Apples-vs-Oranges argument. No doubt your commercial experience was
rewarding on it's own level.

Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the
worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public
in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted
to our use.

I would suggest rewording that to say "bring value to the
citizens [of various nations] in terms of their enjoyment
and well-being" or something like that. I don't see that an
"exchange" of anything is necessary or warranted.

But that "exchage" is exactly what's infered, albeit not
mandatory in PART 97.

Pulling out the Red Book (NTIA) or the big chart in Part 2,
Title 47 C.F.R. on which radio service gets what in the EM
spectrum, we can find some items for USA citizens that
appear to have no intrinsic value whatsoever:

1. 30 KHz bandspace absolutely license free at 160 - 190 KHz.
Been there a long time in regulations, sees little use.

2. 400 KHz bandspace for CB (40 channels at "11m") for nothing
but Personal Communications. No license required. He
avily
used on highways, all states.

3. 1.6 MHz (!) bandspace at 72 to 73, 75.4 to 76 MHz, 80
channels for nothing but model air and surface radio
control. No license required. A very fun hobby.

4. There's more, also regulated by Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R.,
such as Family Radio Service unlicensed transceivers, but
you get the picture, I'm sure.

5. I'm not even counting the RF emitters of very short range
such as the Keyless Auto Entry transmitters (millions) or
the Bluetooth earpieces (look, ma, no wires to my cellphon
e),
the tens of thousands of Wireless LANs that have invaded
residences, the "WiFi" links of Internet to PCs, or other
RF emitters that make our lives easier now, replacing hard
wired or mechanical functions done previously.

All of the above services to citizens which could be categorized
as "unessential" services since they don't immediately secure
their absolute safety or insure their well-being. The above are
available in nearly all countries although their authorized
frequencies may vary due to their adminstrations' regulations.
Items (2) through (5) came into being within the last two decades
or so.

The model radio control bandspace is only 100 KHz narrower than
the worldwide 10m amateur band. Model radio control is pure
hobby-amusement and no modeler (that I've heard/seen) makes any
claims of supplanting vehicles in case of disaster or emergency,
nor is that hobby claimed to be a starting point for any
life-long career in using/designing vehicles, boats, or
aircraft.

All of those allocations you cite are NOT Amateur Radio
allocations albeit they are deceidedly in the public interest to exist
since the public deamnds it.

How is this related to the longevity of the AMATEUR Service?

I think if the members of ITU collectively asked "Are the hams of the
world doing anything which justifies their generous chunks assigned
spectrum?" the honest answer would be "Probably not."

I will ask "which chunks in what spectrum?" Hams of the HF
persuasion are one group, the "VHF-ers" (and up) are the other.
HF has been relatively static in change for at least two
decades, and decreased prior to that with many communications
services formerly on HF migrating to satellite relay.

I'd say by the international press covering numerous uses of the
Amateur services recently that you're both incorrect.

Also, the the communications that Len refers to as "migrating to
satellite relay" are, once again, NOT Amateur Radio functions.

Snippage.

What are we going to do about that?

Speaking from 54 years from my first HF radio experience to
becoming a new amateur nearly two months ago and observing
EM spectrum use while working in industry in all the time
in between, I would say "don't take yourselves so seriously
within your radio service!" Amateur radio is a hobby, a fun
hobby. If other countries' hobbyists can enjoy some chunks
of EM spectrum just for hobbyist fun, then why can't the USA?

For many people Amateur Radio is a hobby.

For others it is a tool to be used for a greater need.

The wide brush applying "hobby" does not fit.

As to this whole claim of being a backup communications
provider when the infrasture fails in disasters, I have to
say show me in a detailed report where it was essential.

The Midwest Floods of 1992. Katrina. Rita. Andrew. Spetember
11th. At least accoriding to the NOAA, The American Red Cross, The
Salvation Army, The Department of Defense, The Department of State,
etc etc etc.

Having been required to design electronics for terrible
environments, I know that amateur radio equipment isn't
going to survive better than the infrastructures' gear.
[see May QST for one piece of equipment that didn't survive
Katrina...lost with one amateur's entire station]

ONE Amateur's...Amateur Radio's greatest strength is in its
multiplicty of resources...Every licensee is yet another "facility"
from which to draw upon. No one piece of radio gear is
indestructable.

The COMMERICAL infrastructure's weakness is it's limitied
numbers, complexity of technology and it's cost. AMATEUR Radio's
strengths are just the opposite.

The Public Safety Radio Services have their radios now and
use them every day. NOAA has its weather observation
services plus satellite downlinks.

Funny you mention the NOAA. One of thier "Enviromental Heros"
this past Earth Day was an Amateur licensee (KC5EZZ), and he was
recognized specificallly for his contributions to NOAA with an
extended Amateur Radio net.

Harbor and inland
waterways have their radio services and plans for
emergencies there. The FAA routinely handles aircraft
emergencies every week with the aid of radio. Believe it
or not, the telephony infrastructure can come back to life
when its subscribers stop all trying to use their
switching system all at once; they've had battery backup in
central offices for more than half a century. Truckers
daily help fellow motorists on highways, sometimes alerted
over their CBs. Yes, amateur radio CAN be a help in
emergencies just as ALL citizens can be a help, with or
without any license for anything.

There hasn't been any need for trained morse code operators
for over a decade for any WWII-era "pool" to help the
nation. With anything in radio. The miliaries do adequate
training of their members, government radio with theirs.
I'd say the salient feature of amateur radio is its ability
to introduce newcomers to a fascinating technologically-
heavy activity...somethine they can have fun with while
learning. For youngsters it MIGHT be a starting point for
their eventual working careers. For adults and older folks
it can be just fun in itself. There's seemingly some
puritanical echoes in the general repeated "reasons" for
being IN amateur radio...those leave out the FUN element.
I see that as a liability to ham radio promotion,
diametrically opposite to being an asset. Is having fun
so terrible? Especially having fun while learning a new
technology (for newcomers) or new application (for those
already experienced)?

Perhaps after you've joined some local Amateur clubs and actually
get an opportunity to exercise the privileges of your newly acquired
license your scope of experience as to what Amateur Radio is, can be,
and has been will be enhanced.

Recreation IS, to my mind, an asset for all.

It is.

But no where in Part 97 is the word "recreation" used.

That the Amateur Service does provide recreation is a given. But
some continue to insist that "recreation" or "hobby use" is ALL that
the Amateur Service is required to provide.

Almost 100 years of history has proven differently and even in
today's techno-saavy society continues to be so.

It diverts
our stresses from making a living, eases tensions, makes
a life experience more enjoyable. If that recreation can
also increase individuals' intellectual capacity, I say "so
much the better!" Maybe I'm biased having been IN the
electronics industry so long (sans 'benefit' of ham
license) and maybe because I happen to like the fascinating
technology enough that I liked most of my work. It has
been a great, stimulating trip for me and it is still
happening. It could be for others, too, those who look
forward instead of backward to what was, a was that will
never be again.

There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your
HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re-
focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it!

73

Steve, K4YZ

From: wrote on Wed 2 May 2007 23:35:

On Apr 21, 12:20?am, AF6AY wrote:

There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your
HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re-
focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it!

I will politiely ask you to rephrase that paragraph.

I cannot "drop kick" my previous life experience. In granting me
an Amateur Extra license, the FCC has not required that I give up
anything (as in discarding or "drop kicking") insofar as radio...nor
of experience in radio nor of formal training in radio. Further, the
FCC gives all licensees a great deal of freedom of choice in their
class's frequency spectrum and modes of communications. There
is no compelling mandate that any licensee must 'operate' in
according to what certain groups of amateurs say one must.

"Radio" and all of electronics works by the same laws of physics,
regardless of the federal regulations on use made by governments.
The jargon, phrases, type of communication conveyed may vary
between different administrated radio services, but the basic laws
of physics will still apply on RF generation and the way it is
propagated.

The scope, content of my personal activities are of no one's concern,
nor should they be. If I choose to convey my gained experience and
knowledge into amateur radio, that is my concern. Such might help
others with lesser experience and knowledge, not hinder anything.
I don't choose to isolate myself solely into some amateur lifestyle
and there is no specific requirement as to what I 'should' or 'must'
do as an amateur radio licensee other than obey the regulations.

In all electronic communications, telegraphy was first a commercial
activity, wired and by radio later. Single-channel single sideband
was first a commercial activity, first wired (in long-lines service
as
frequency-multiplexed multiple voice channels) then by radio..
Voice communications was first a commercial activity (via
broadcasting, first on AM then on FM). Data communications by
radio was first a commercial activity, wired then by radio (although
called 'teleprinter' before the word 'data' became the vogue). Tele-
vision was first a commercial activity, again via broadcasting. The
various TORs (Teleprinter Over Radio) were all a commercial activity
first. Both direct sequence and frequency-hopping spread spectrum
techniques were first a military, then a commercial activity. All of
those have since been adopted for amateur radio use. To "drop
kick" the commercial modes would be to remove all modes of
communications available to U.S. radio amateurs today...except
PSK31, a data mode exclusively innovated-invented-designed by
Peter Martinez, G3PLX, solely for amateur radio use.

73, Len AF6AY

On May 3, 3:52�pm, AF6AY wrote:
From: wrote on Wed 2 May 2007 23:35:

On Apr 21, 12:20?am, AF6AY wrote:

There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your
HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re-
focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it!

I will politiely ask you to rephrase that paragraph.

Request refused due to lack of valid reason to do so.

Steve, K4YZ

On May 3, 4:52 pm, AF6AY wrote:
From: wrote on Wed 2 May 2007 23:35:

On Apr 21, 12:20?am, AF6AY wrote:

There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your
HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re-
focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it!

I will politiely ask you to rephrase that paragraph.

some thing Never do change it seems



I cannot "drop kick" my previous life experience. In granting me
an Amateur Extra license, the FCC has not required that I give up
anything (as in discarding or "drop kicking") insofar as radio...nor
of experience in radio nor of formal training in radio. Further, the
FCC gives all licensees a great deal of freedom of choice in their
class's frequency spectrum and modes of communications. There
is no compelling mandate that any licensee must 'operate' in
according to what certain groups of amateurs say one must.

"Radio" and all of electronics works by the same laws of physics,
regardless of the federal regulations on use made by governments.

Nor should rop kickyou experence after all if you could achive that
state (which I doubt) would you even have an interest in the ARS? I
doubt it
In your case your professional eperence is what brought you here

In Mine it was lsitening to audio from the YomKippur year and I think
before that the 6 Day war. Our life experences are what makesus who we
are as people and as Hams

"drop kicking" Our experences is form a sucide in a very real sense


But of course you are right Maxwell equation et alldo not change
suddenlyin the Ham bands

I read alternitive history and sometimes in my nightmares wonder what
what following the Conventional wisdom back when we ham were banshihed
to USELES HF would have produced today

I hope and Belive that the ARS has a future