|
Are we the last generation of hams?
Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? (And if we
are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) 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. But I worry sometimes. 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 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." What are we going to do about that? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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... :-) (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. I can't presume to guess how many sun cycles I'll have and I don't lose sleep over it. So far, I love my wife, but sincerely doubt I would ever love any radios like that. But I worry sometimes. 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. 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. Heavily 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 cellphone), 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. 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. The last HF amateur band worldwide use allocation happened in 1979 from the World Administrative Radio Conference and those new bands are dubbed "WARC" for short by hams. 1979 was 28 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any new users begging for HF bandspace. The new "channels" at 60m were assigned by the FCC for amateur use based largely on ARRL lobbying, on the basis of some kind of necessity of equatorial communications for [hurricane] disasters. The lobbying does not, to me at least, seem to take into account what the equatorial nations have done or not done for their communications. Regardless, the added amateur bandspace was just a few slivers. In the world above 30 MHz it is a whole new ballgame. Demands by business and governments up there are great. Nearly all of the US government's "auction" monies on new service providers come from there. The FCC's HDTV channel frequency reallocation plan has resulted in hundreds of MHz of new bandspace for new radio services, nearly all allocated under auction. Maybe there was some effort of amateurs to secure a little bit of the "700 MHz" vicinity openings for hams but I can't recall seeing any. But, the World Above 30 MHz is largely Line of Sight in use. The only real crowding of those bands occurs in big urban areas. There doesn't seem to be a Big Need for bandspace above 30 MHz for US radio amateurs. 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? 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. 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] The Public Safety Radio Services have their radios now and use them every day. NOAA has its weather observation services plus satellite downlinks. 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)? Recreation IS, to my mind, an asset for all. 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. 73, Len AF6AY |
Are we the last generation of hams?
|
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote:
wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: 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. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. MF/HF is only a minor fraction of our allocations. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. So I pose my question again..... "What are we going to do about that?" 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 21, 11:09�am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote: wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 @y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: 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. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. *Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. *But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. MF/HF is only a minor fraction of our allocations. * In terms of how many kHz we have, yes. Except for 6 meters has more kHz than all of the 9 MF/HF bands plus the channels at 60 meters. Same for almost every amateur allocation above 30 MHz. But for some reason those HF/MF bands are considered extremely desirable by radio amateurs. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... So I pose my question again..... *"What are we going to do about that?" The first thing is to simply *use* that spectrum. The very best argument for reassignment of spectrum is that the folks who have it aren't using it. or aren't using much of it. That argument was one reason we lost 220-222 MHz: the folks who wanted it were able to convince FCC that we hams could fit all of our 220-222 activities into 222-225. But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. --- Perhaps, when we speak of those VHF/UHF bands, we're seeing history repeat itself. In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. After the 1912 laws went into effect, amateurs could get station licenses for any of the 'shortwaves' simply for the asking. But once those amateurs showed how useful those 'shortwaves' were, others followed, and by 1924 or so amateurs were confined to certain bands. No longer could amateurs simply pick a wave and get a license to use it. Then in 1927 came the "1929 rules", which significantly narrowed some of the existing bands. 40 meters had been 7000 - 8000 kHz before the 1929 rules, but once they went into effect, the band was 7000 - 7300. 20 meters went from 14000 - 16000 to 14000 - 14400. There were other changes such as requiring stable and clean signals. Some said that those 1929 rules would strangle amateur radio, and would soon kill it off due to overcrowding and the expense/complexity of a "1929 transmitter". But exactly the opposite happened, because in the years after the 1929 rules, the number of US hams almost tripled and the technology used took great leaps forward. We hams got our enormous VHF/UHF allocations after WW2, when much of it was considered relatively useless, or at least not as useful as the lower frequencies. That's all changed in the past couple of decades. Perhaps it's 1929 all over again in some ways. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 20, 6:00 pm, wrote:
Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? (And if we are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) in danger? perhaps we are but we have ALWAYS been in such danger are we likly to lose specturm? almost certainly are we doomed? not likely OTOH we certianly could use to be more encouraging of new hams was at a Hamfest only yesterday the first for my wife as arelitivly new general and she felt kida out of place and not exactly welcomed (She is someone that they don't know quite what to make of although most of the folks in room are more likely to have talked to her on Air than they haare to have talked to me" and fewer stil of know exactly what to make of me but those are other stmatters one thing our clubs and hamfest comittees could do is be a bit more organized about welcomeing New Hams |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 22, 11:52 am, wrote:
On Apr 21, 11:09?am, wrote: But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. it would require not money but a Govt foot in the rear to gain Acess to those orbital spots there is already something of a traffic jam OTOH one thing that might help is for old hams to learn more about about how we can in fact in Do such things as EME I ended up giving going abit about Modern EME and Ms work at our local hamfest ( I may end up riding a circut giving tlaks on the subject in the UP but that is another thread |
Are we the last generation of hams?
Steve Bonine wrote on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:19:50 EDT:
wrote: 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." What are we going to do about that? I'm frankly more concerned about the people aspect of this issue than the spectrum issue. That's a very valid concern and goes to the core of present- day amateur radio activity. As others in the thread have pointed out, HF spectrum is not particularly valuable these days. I don't think we're in any huge danger of losing those allocations. Even VHF and the lower end of UHF aren't as sought-after as they once were. True enough at the regulatory level. The thing that bothers me is the decline in the number of active ham radio operators. Ham radio as a hobby has many aspects, but most of them involve collaboration with other people, either on the air or otherwise. As the number of people declines, the potential for the hobby as a whole declines. Our entire USA society has far more available recreational pursuits now than a half century ago when I was a young adult. That affects every recreational activity, not just amateur radio. It is also quite normal in human society. On the other hand, the newcomers to amateur radio are, just barely, keeping pace with the number of licensee expirations. That has been going on for four years since the peak of 2003. Further, newcomers have been entering the ham world above 30 MHz, a region quite different from the older, established HF world. Communication is a common desire in all human groupings. In all forms. In 2004 the US Bureau of the Census reported that one out of three Americans had a cell phone subscription. Not bad for a public service that, 20 years ago, barely had enough users to be worth a poll-taking effort. The Census Bureau also said that one in five American households had some form of Internet access; the Internet went public in 1991, just 16 years ago. Internet access is not possible without some form of personal computer which, a quarter century ago, were things only for computer hobbyists. We all have had wired telephone service all our lives yet that didn't exist two centuries ago. We have, nearly everywhere, more TV channels for news as well as entertainment now than the TV Boom times of the 1950s. We have the CDs for music, video, and personal data such as photos (instant digital, no going to "have them developed"). We have boom boxes, IPods, and broadcast receivers built into headsets. We are almost awash with individual information and entertainment input. :-) Considering all of the above, I was a bit surprised to see so many folks younger than I (almost everyone is) in the 20 or so at my amateur radio test session of 25 Feb 07. There were about 10 more in the beginning but those were doing adminstrative changes or changing from Tech Plus to Tech, clearing the room for the actual testing. I live in a rural area, so I see this trend more than those of you in densely-populated areas. Our local club is teetering on the edge of extinction, and the people who are involved tend not to be much interested in radio -- they care more about the social aspects of drinking coffee with their buddies. When it's time to mount some kind of local effort, be it Skywarn, Field Day, or even the annual picnic, it's harder and harder to attract a critical mass of people to participate. That is common in human groupings. Clubs are essentially fraternal orders, though usually on a smaller scale. Some were formed for a specific purpose, not necessarily for the entirety of all amateur radio activities. Clubs about specific activites will, over time, morph into reflections of those in the club who wish to lead more than be enthused about an activity per se. That is normal also. Depending on the type of leadership, a club may or may not be "good" for that activity. Unfortunately, quantification of "good" tends to be subjective to every interpreter of it. I suspect that my view is atypical, but I don't know if it's atypical because it forecasts what's in store for ham radio as a hobby, or atypical because it's not seeing the positive aspects like young people entering the hobby. But the future of the hobby depends on *people*. Absolutely depends on people. My issue with "my" national organization is that they pay too much attention on extremes, the long-timers and the newcomers. They almost ignore the huge demographic grouping in the middle. They have made very little attempt to recruit membership of the huge license class (the biggest for years, without doubt) who were restricted to the spectrum above 30 MHz in the USA. The continuing emphasis in activities have been on "the bands" referring to HF, the old ways of the hobby. That went, in my view, from "gentrification" to "stratification." That reflects downward to the local club level. I'm all for "young people" entering amateur radio. But that is not the only demographic source of newcomers. An objective examination would show that "young people" are the most- influenced by peer pressure and the tremendous entertainment resources available to them now. Largely ignored is the twenty- and thirty-somethings who have started to stabilize in their life experience, have reached an economic level where they can afford a hobby and have some leisure time available. I've always heard the carbon-copy stories that described teen "discoveries" of radio and that becoming their lifelong passion. It was never in regulations that one had to be a teen-ager to begin in amateur radio, nor any life oath of obeisance to amateur radio had to be sworn. On closer scrutiny, most of those teeners were such 40 to 30 years ago. Times and our society have changed but most such story- tellers seem to be unchanged. ... To me, the goal is to recruit young folks into the hobby and to actually involve them so that they're active hams instead of numbers in a listing. That's an excellent beginning. A caveat: If they are active, the activity does not have to be activity of the mode of 30 to 50 years ago. Newcomers will find their own way to their own desires of activity...just like old-timers did a long time ago for their desires. Newcomers are PEOPLE. They are not "recruits" (a la military) who must be indoctrinated almost forcibly into certain ways. While that is almost done in some clubs, it has a negative effect and the newcomers tend to say/think unprintable words to would-be leaders and drop out of the hobby in disgust. Newcomers to the hobby don't all accept the "territorial imperative" of the long-timer who continually implies "THIS is how WE do it in ham radio." Newcomers can become familiar quickly enough with accepted formality and self-styled "radio cops" aren't needed on the air. Neither should there be a continual expressed bigotry about CB by radio amateurs. CB has been around for 49 years in the USA. I would say that the amateur radio of now is interesting enough to the generations of now. The statistics seem to bear that out. Those actively engaged in recruiting newcomers need to look around at what is popular to the generations of now in ham radio. That may be the hardest task of all...learning what is new by those who thought they knew it all. Clubs as "recruting stations" for ham radio need honest enthusiasm about PEOPLE of all kinds, all ages, be friendly on a people level and not try so hard at "selling" the hobby. Newcomers who've shown up at a club have already expressed enough interest to show up, do not need the "salesmen" types who want to "make a deal" for them. I just don't know what those ways are. There's no sure-fire cure. I'm not sure that there needs to be one. I've suggested a few but examples of good and bad (and indifferent) leadership abound in the various local fraternal orders and other-hobby clubs. As we agree, times have changed. That is not only for amateur radio but other hobby activities as well. We all have to change to stay "with it." 73, Len AF6AY |
Are we the last generation of hams?
wrote on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:52:02 EDT:
On Apr 21, 11:09?am, wrote: On Apr 21, 2:45 am, Larry wrote: wrote in news:1177105498.800186.298520 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. That might have been true before 2000, but isn't true today. ?Some spectrum would be lost to services who are interested in VHF/UHF and above. ?But, noone wants HF any more, as is self evident by the lack of traffic across HF outside the ham bands. Maybe it's not vulnerable, or maybe it is, but compared to the massive amount of VHF/ UHF spectrum we could lose, I consider HF an insignificant issue. Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... Are radio amateurs going to "lose" EM spectrum space? I didn't know this was so dictated. If amateurs want to keep something in radio, they have to continually fight for it; just because they got some allocations once doesn't mean it is forever. In the last half century, amateur radio worldwide has GAINED allocations, not lost. Begin with WARC-79 decisions... So I pose my question again..... ?"What are we going to do about that?" The first thing is to simply *use* that spectrum. The very best argument for reassignment of spectrum is that the folks who have it aren't using it. or aren't using much of it. How does "*use*" of line-of-sight get publicized nationally? The NTIS has a specific EM Survey mobile unit which has been used to take readings of certain areas of the United States over an extremely wide range of frequencies. Those surveys are available to the public and each one is extensive, technically explicit. Other than "popular activities" described in amateur radio interest periodicals, the use of line-of-sight frequencies is mentioned only in regards to an already-allocated radio service in trade journals. That argument was one reason we lost 220-222 MHz: the folks who wanted it were able to convince FCC that we hams could fit all of our 220-222 activities into 222-225. "220" wasn't the only amateur band in dispute in the last half century in the USA. The politics of the various disputes can't be simplistically interpreted. As I recall, not a user of "220" at the time, the ARRL did not argue effectively enough for its retention to convince the FCC. But you can't force amateurs to operate on certain bands. They can be encouraged, but not forced. Yes, they can be forced. See "200 Meters and down." So the question becomes "what will make the VHF/UHF amateur bands more attractive to hams?" I wasn't aware that the ham bands above 30 MHz were not attractive. Radio equipment manufacturers are continually supplying radios and advertising VHF-and-up radios, have been for years. There's obviously a market for them as witness the continued advertising campaign waged with high monetary values. Since the inception of the no-code-test Technician class license 16 years ago, the vast majority of newcomers in the USA have entered amateur radio in the "world above 30 MHz." The Technician class has become - easily - the most numerous of all US amateur radio classes. No-code-test Technicians were banned from privileges below 30 MHz in the USA. "Techs" continue being newcomers despite cessation of morse code testing in the USA for amateurs. The migration to VHF and above in amateur radio is not confined to the USA. JARL and Japanese electronics industry have developed D-Star specifically for digital modes on VHF and above. AOR in Japan has one digital voice adapter for voice-bandwidth radios and another one from Germany has been described in the April QST issue this year. While US HF-only hams may shun digital anything on "their" bands, such is readily useable on VHF and above with no basic changes. Perhaps a new generation of near-geosynchronous amateur satellites would attract more activity. Perhaps it would be prudent to take a good look around at the activity at VHF and above that is going on today? Or the deployment of a highspeed linked repeater network. But those things require sizable infrastructure investments by amateurs. Is that a necessity? In 1977 I was shown the start of what would grow into the present-day Condor Net on the "220" band, operating in three states (CA, NV, AZ) and capable of being tone-coded-linking from one repeater to any other repeater. That was without using conventional digital logic or the ubiquitous microprocessor. Sizeable investment by amateurs? Yes, but also willingly done. Well done, I might add. The latest ARRL Repeater Directory shows an enormity of repeaters ("sizeable infrastructure investments"), most of them public-access, installed and operated by radio amateurs. Repeaters have been put into place all over the USA in the last three decades plus. Even without repeaters, the use of VHF-UHF and even low microwaves by radio amateurs has become sizeable in urban areas of the USA. --- We hams got our enormous VHF/UHF allocations after WW2, when much of it was considered relatively useless, or at least not as useful as the lower frequencies. That's all changed in the past couple of decades. Not being a licensed radio amateur right after WWII, I was unaware that "VHF/UHF" was "useless." Edwin Armstrong pioneered FM broadcasting there in the 1930s. Public safety radio started the use it in the last 1930s, finding it very useful compared to the old HF radios a few agencies had. The US military was already using low VHF in the 1930s and would continue that with the famed "walkie-talkie" of WWII. The fledgling TV broadcast industry and their equipment makers had already standardized on low-VHF frequencies in the 1930s (via the "first" NTSC). The US military switched to low-VHF FM radios for vehicular operation en masse at the beginning of WWII...even the USN had its "TBS." Radar, a savior of tacticians in WWII, had to operate on UHF and microwaves, was predictably quite successful in that RF region. Still is. All of the preceding paragraph took place 7 decades ago, not a "couple" of them. Perhaps it's 1929 all over again in some ways. Perhaps too many of the HF persuasion are affected with ennui over their self-imposed limitations of radio use. I still see an unlimited vista of hope and adventure in the future. The state of the art of radio-electronics is constantly advancing. By the looks of things, it isn't about to stop anytime soon. Change keeps happening. Those who refuse to change, want their endless youthful discoveries to continue, want to close off amateur activities to what was long ago, will all mourn and wail over "losses." The rest of the world will continue without them, changing things to fit the new people, not the old ones. Those who want something will have to go out and WORK for it, DO something about it, not sit around and grouse about things not being the same. The new people will have earned theirs and the future will be different. I say good for them! 73, Len AF6AY PS: No "artifacts" were exploited or utilized on this text file upload. |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote:
Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going to do about that?" In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. How about this, for a two step approach? 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. 2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15 years. All of 160M. 3550-3600KHz. 3900-4000KHz. 7050-7150KHz. 7250-7300KHz. 14050-14100KHz. 14300-14350KHz. 21050-21100KHZ. 21400-21450KHz. All of 10M. 146-148MHz. 222-225MHz. All bands above 432MHz. |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 22, 11:02�pm, wrote:
On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote: Which would you rather lose - 1 MHz of the 1296 MHz band, or all of 160, 40, 20, 30 and 17 meter bands? Same amount of bandwidth... That's misdirection, Jim, and ignores the question "What are we going to do about that?" It's not misdirection, Hans. It's a plain and simple question, meant to focus on the fact that not all kHz are created equal. In 1912, amateurs were legislated to "200 Meters And Down", meaning they were legislated off what were then considered to be the most- useful wavelengths. So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. Perhaps. How about this, for a two step approach? 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. I like it! The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept secret? How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class needed a different exam system than all the rest? *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. The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or 'deliberate interference'? I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband restrictions, rather than real experimentation. 2) Starting 10 years from the effective date of the R&O, require that the following band segments can only be used with modulation types and information coding schemes which were invented in the previous 15 years. *All of 160M. *3550-3600KHz. *3900-4000KHz. *7050-7150KHz. 7250-7300KHz. *14050-14100KHz. *14300-14350KHz. *21050-21100KHZ. 21400-21450KHz. *All of 10M. *146-148MHz. *222-225MHz. *All bands above 432MHz. 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. I don't think that's a good idea. Just because something isn't brand new doesn't mean it should be legislated off the air. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Are we the last generation of hams?
wrote in message
oups.com On Apr 22, 11:02?pm, wrote: On Apr 22, 3:52 pm, wrote: [snip] So maybe the answer is that the FCC should craft a new challenge of similar magnitude to stimulate the Amateur Radio service to a new golden age, similar to that which followed the 200-meters-and-down challenge. Perhaps. Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction outside of the US. 73 Ivor G6URP |
Are we the last generation of hams?
Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over
here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? Radio knows no international frontiers and the FCC has no jurisdiction outside of the US. I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC :o) -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS# 9666 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org |
Are we the last generation of hams?
|
Are we the last generation of hams?
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. Only this crisis would leave some residual segments for those not inclined to accept the challenge. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
I second that remark. There's more to radio than the FCC :o) -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL I wholeheartedly agree, Jack, and I didn't mean to imply that FCC had any jurisdiction outside of the USA. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 23, 10:38 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
Putting my UK hat on, how would anything done by the FCC affect us over here, or anywhere else in the world for that matter..? It would have no regulatory effect at all outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, and your operations wouldn't be directly affected at all. However, presuming the idea gained traction, obviously the secondary effect would be that hams in other countries would want to also experiment with any new modes or techniques they heard on the air and would petition their regulators to allow it. I'm reminded of a "reverse" example of this which happened here in North America awhile back. For several years Canadian amateurs were allowed on-the-air development and use of AX-25 (packet radio) but FCC regulations prohibited W/K hams from participating. Eventually we were able to convince FCC to allow this mode. Thus in this example, the action of the Canadian regulators had an indirect secondary effect of eventually changing the mind of the FCC. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On Apr 23, 9:57 am, wrote:
The only problem is, how would the question pool be kept secret? At this point in the discussion, I'd certainly consider that a question which would need to be addressed in the implementation. How could FCC be convinced, after a quarter-century of published Q&A pools and the VE system, that this new license class needed a different exam system than all the rest? By a well constructed proposal which effectively demonstrates the benefits of a renewed spirit of experimentation and innovation by hams. The problem I see with that is, who defines 'experiment' or 'deliberate interference'? Who defines 'deliberate interference' now. K4ZDH comes to mind. The definition of what would qualify as an experimental mode (not currently in use) would be a trival administrative exercise. I could see the license being used as a way around mode-subband restrictions, rather than real experimentation. Yes, Jim, there will always be some sea-lawyers who will try to exploit 'cracks' in the regulations. Obviously my PBI above is not a finished product and does not address all the potential 'problems' and 'abuse opportunities'. I'd like to consider it as a starting point for positive discussion. Thank you for your participation in that spirit. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Are we the last generation of hams?
|
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
|
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
|
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
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 |
Are we the last generation of hams?
On May 5, 9:04�am, an old freind wrote:
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 y our HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and r e- 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 Let's leave that for another newsgroup to handle. 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 Actually, military experience "brought me here." :-) That's given at http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf My first interest in "radio" came about while flying free-flight model aircraft in 1947. I'd heard about radio control and wanted to know more. Of course, there wasn't much technology involved in 1947 for that. :-) But of course you are right Maxwell equation et alldo not change suddenlyin the Ham bands James Clerk Maxwell was one of the rare geniuses who came up with the basic equations defining electromagnetic waves. "Maxwell's Equations" serve all radio of today...even if some of the users can't understand what they mean. :-) I hope and Belive that the ARS has a future I'd like to think so, too. But, it must adapt to the times and technology and not be bound to certain modes and procedures established in the middle time of its existance. 73, Len AF6AY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com