On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Over a number of years they succeeded in all but eliminating the
concept of the skilled, knowledgeable, *licensed* Radio Operator. Saved
lots of money and aggravation. All we have left now are pieces of the
old rules and requirements.

Some might say that the new technologies no longer required specialized
Radio Operators, and in some cases that's probably true. But I think
the dismantling of commercial Radio Operator licensing was more about
the deregulation for the sake of bigger profits rather than the lack of
need for operators.

This part of the history touches upon a issue that I think fits under
the "law of unintended consequenses."

I came into Amateur radio as a digital guy who wanted to learn about
radio This may give me a different perspective.. A lot of Hams,
especially those who have been Hams for a long time, seem to
inadvertently downplay just what knowledge is needed to be an
effective communicator in wireless. You see this in their comments
about some supposed ease in getting a license, among others. I'm here
to tell you that the art and science of making a communications link
between randomly "chosen" areas, and all the electronics that that
entails, is a matter that takes some serious education and/or
experience.

Yet time after time, the systems that we come up with just fail. And
the problem is always that the best laid plans to take the skilled
operator out of the link fail. The reason is pretty simple. The effort
to remove the decisions that an educated operator would make add
infrastructure to the system. When the wheels com off, the
infrastructure fails. The same forces that destroy, flood, and freeze
the victims of disaster also have an effect on the infrastructure that
is in place to rescue them.

On the commercial radio operator demise part, I'd have to say that you
want to listen in my area to hear the results. One company owns all
the radio stations in my area, with the exception of the Public
station.. The only one I bother to listen to other than the Public
station is the local ESPN sports station. They regularly go off the
air for long periods of time, play the satellite feed message, or my
favorite, play two feeds at once. The funny thing is that the most
listened to station in the area is guess who, the public station. They
still have engineers, they still monitor their output, and they
actually take input from their listeners.

That deregulation, that getting rid of skilled employees, did it work
when we have 8 or 9 stations that are horribly undependable, and most
everyone, even people who hate to admit it, listen to the public radio
station?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 3, 12:43�am, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:

A lot of Hams,
especially those who have been Hams for a long time, seem to
inadvertently downplay just what knowledge is needed to be an
effective communicator in wireless.

I don't think that's just a long-time-ham thing.

You see this in their comments
about some supposed ease in getting a license, among others.

I think there's a big difference between what it takes to get a USA
amateur license and what it takes to be an effective communicator, even
if we're just talking about Amateur Radio. The license tests are just
the beginning; there's a lot of practical stuff not on the license
tests.

I'm here
to tell you that the art and science of making
a communications link
between randomly "chosen" areas, and all the electronics that that
entails, is a matter that takes some serious education and/or
experience.

I think that depends on what resources are available and what the
actual conditions and communications needs are.

For example, with modern satellite communications, a news team can be
flown into a disaster area (such as Haiti) and get an on-the-spot
report out of the disaster area in short order. Getting communication
from specific people in the disaster area to others inside or outside
the disaster area is a completely different thing.

Some folks may not consider "health and welfare" messages to be of
vital importance, but when you have loved ones in the disaster area and
haven't heard from them in days, a simple "We're OK!" message
ispriceless.

Plus what is seen on TV isn't always an accurate picture. On another
forum I read about the devastation of Hurricane Ike being only just
behind Hurricane Katrina in dollars. But Katrina got far more media
play than Ike, over a much longer time. And the Katrina coverage
focused on New Orleans even though the Mississippi coastline was harder
hit. (This isn't a claim of bias or wrongdoing; reporters can't be
evenly distributed everywhere. But it is reason to take TV reports with
a grain of salt).

Yet time after time, the systems that we come up with just fail. And
the problem is always that the best laid plans to take the skilled
operator out of the link fail. The reason is pretty simple. The effort
to remove the decisions that an educated operator would make
add
infrastructure to the system. When the wheels com off, the
infrastructure fails. The same forces that destroy, flood, and
freeze
the victims of disaster also have an effect on the infrastructure
that is in place to rescue them.

As Commander Montgomery Scott used to say: "The more complicated you
make the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". Or similar.

The problem is cost; the skilled operator costs more resources than the
equipment that replaces him/her. And as the availability (in the
technical sense) of the equipment improves, the apparent need for
operators goes down.

On the commercial radio operator demise part, I'd have
to say that you
want to listen in my area to hear the results. One company
owns all
the radio stations in my area, with the exception of the Public
station..

To diverge for a moment, that's another example of the government
taking a hands-off approach when formerly they had been active in
regulation.

It used to be that there were all kinds of limits on how many broadcast
stations the same corporate entity could own in a given market. The
idea was that no market should be dominated, let alone monopolized, by
a single network or company. This idea and the regulations to enforce
it were in place for decades, but a few years ago were quietly tossed
aside, resulting in what you have in your area.

The only one I bother to listen to other than the Public
station is the local ESPN sports station. They regularly go off the
air for long periods of time, play the satellite feed message, or my
favorite, play two feeds at once.

AM or FM?

The funny thing is that the most
listened to station in the area is guess who, the public station.

Not unusual - market forces at work... Here in Philly we have at least
two: WHYY and WXPN

They
still have engineers, they still monitor their output, and they
actually take input from their listeners.

That deregulation, that getting rid of skilled employees, did it work
when we have 8 or 9 stations that are horribly undependable,
and most
everyone, even people who hate to admit it, listen to the public
radio station?

Depends on how you define "did it work". From a pure profit standpoint,
all that matters is the return on investment. To the station's owners,
the additional cost of improving the availability of the signal and the
content of the programming may not result in enough of an increased
return (of cash).

But the public station measures "return on investment" differently.

I think Amateur Radio does, too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Feb 4, 8:17 am, wrote:

To diverge for a moment, that's another example of the government
taking a hands-off approach when formerly they had been active in
regulation.

It used to be that there were all kinds of limits on how many broadcast
stations the same corporate entity could own in a given market. The
idea was that no market should be dominated, let alone monopolized, by
a single network or company. This idea and the regulations to enforce
it were in place for decades, but a few years ago were quietly tossed
aside, resulting in what you have in your area.

The only one I bother to listen to other than the Public
station is the local ESPN sports station. They regularly go off the
air for long periods of time, play the satellite feed message, or my
favorite, play two feeds at once.

AM or FM?

It's an AM station.


The funny thing is that the most
listened to station in the area is guess who, the public station.

Not unusual - market forces at work... Here in Philly we have at least
two: WHYY and WXPN

They
still have engineers, they still monitor their output, and they
actually take input from their listeners.
That deregulation, that getting rid of skilled employees, did it work
when we have 8 or 9 stations that are horribly undependable,
and most
everyone, even people who hate to admit it, listen to the public
radio station?

Depends on how you define "did it work". From a pure profit standpoint,
all that matters is the return on investment. To the station's owners,
the additional cost of improving the availability of the signal and the
content of the programming may not result in enough of an increased
return (of cash).

From what I can gather, the post-regulation version of radio stations
is that you apply the notion of mass production to the issue. In this
method, you buy up as many stations as possible, and minimally staff
them. Then instead of locally produced content, you have satellite
feeds. Advertisement then is mostly national type stuff - I think
that's picked up from satellite also. I've heard Canadian public
service announcements on our local stations. On our local sports
station, there is maybe 15 percent local advertisements, and 1 semi
locally produced show.

It's been an unexpected boon for the public station. These local
places still need to advertise, so they are throwing money at the
public station. Then they get a mention, a thanks, and it turns out
that the public radio listeners will support these businesses and let
them know why. The great irony is that when the NPR was largely
removed from the public dole, it was done with the intention that it
would kill public radio. Now after all these years, commercial radio
is in the pits, and people are supporting public radio directly.

Back on topic, I'm firmly convinced that Amateur radio will serve as a
sort of an island for technically inclined people, while we sort our
way through this time of celebrity as role model, and the reality tv
mode that so many people seem to be in thrall to. We now celebrate the
mundane. I'm more interested in the exceptional, and I try to show as
many people as I know that to be technical is not a bad thing. That's
why I let everyone know that the hockey playing, loud motorcycle
driving guy is also full of that geeky goodness. There is an
alternative.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

From: "Michael J. Coslo"
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:43:46 EST
Subject: The Theory of Licensing
On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Yet time after time, the systems that we come up with just fail. And
the problem is always that the best laid plans to take the skilled
operator out of the link fail. The reason is pretty simple. The effort
to remove the decisions that an educated operator would make add
infrastructure to the system. When the wheels com off, the
infrastructure fails. The same forces that destroy, flood, and freeze
the victims of disaster also have an effect on the infrastructure that
is in place to rescue them.

To me, that is a confusing paragraph. As far as I've seen in more urban
areas, the "infrastructure" survives quite well and has been proven to
do so in some very serious events. That takes planning by "skilled,
knowledgeable" managers. I'm talking about the telephone
infrastructure, the public safety infrastructure, and even the
broadcast infrastructure. If an emergency is totally catastrophic to
eliminate some "infrastructure," it will also eliminate the amateur as
a potential savior.

I've seen, over TV, some rather catastrophic emergencies, brought to
everyone by the news media of several networks, including showing in
the background the communications vehicles and equipment of various
National Guard units (source: flooding of rivers beginning in the
Dakotas). Add to that the First Gulf War bombing in Iraq done by a CNN
news team, none identified as amateur licensees.

There has been a significant improvement in 'radio' technology that
does not require the old-style "skill and knowledge" alluded to by the
first thread author. For example, during that First Gulf War bombing,
voices of the journalists were coming over the Iraqi telephone
infrastructure. When that was damaged during the bombing they continued
on via satellite using equipment they had with them. Saddam Hussein was
even interviewed live by one of the CNN journalists during that
bombing.

By the way, the first thread author's text may be viewed almost
verbatim on e-ham.net Forums, Licensing, under "A Modest Proposal"
dated 31 January 2010. My reply to him follows there but there was no
counterpoint to my reply. shrug

73, Len K6LHA

On Feb 4, 9:29 am, K6LHA wrote:
From: "Michael J. Coslo"
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:43:46 EST
Subject: The Theory of Licensing

On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Yet time after time, the systems that we come up with just fail. And
the problem is always that the best laid plans to take the skilled
operator out of the link fail. The reason is pretty simple. The effort
to remove the decisions that an educated operator would make add
infrastructure to the system. When the wheels com off, the
infrastructure fails. The same forces that destroy, flood, and freeze
the victims of disaster also have an effect on the infrastructure that
is in place to rescue them.

To me, that is a confusing paragraph. As far as I've seen in more urban
areas, the "infrastructure" survives quite well and has been proven to
do so in some very serious events. That takes planning by "skilled,
knowledgeable" managers. I'm talking about the telephone
infrastructure, the public safety infrastructure, and even the
broadcast infrastructure. If an emergency is totally catastrophic to
eliminate some "infrastructure," it will also eliminate the amateur as
a potential savior.

Its a matter of system complexity. The more complex the structure, the
more likely the failure.

In our area, we have a 10 year old system that doesn't work under
normal conditions, much less emergency ones They are trying to replace
it now, but we spent a whole lot of money and got very little for it.
It was touted as a great thing when it was installed. And it wasn't
inexpensive or put together



I've seen, over TV, some rather catastrophic emergencies, brought to
everyone by the news media of several networks, including showing in
the background the communications vehicles and equipment of various
National Guard units (source: flooding of rivers beginning in the
Dakotas). Add to that the First Gulf War bombing in Iraq done by a CNN
news team, none identified as amateur licensees.

Most very respectfully Len, I now understand the confusion.

The amateurs are not there to provide news via satellite, or to do
television shows. We're not part of public safety or broadcast
stations.

We're there to pass along communications behind the scene.

Where this shows up is in the how of our work. It isn't glamorous, to
be sure. But in most cases, a satellite reporter from some disaster
scene is going to be there to give a news report. Not so likely a
request for say, shovels and toilet paper. It's all part of post
disaster work.

Broadcast stations are in a similar state. Their part is more likely
to give people info about avoiding the areas in question, or
evacuation routes to follow. Amateurs wouldn't be doing that, because
there isn't a receiving end. Most everyone has a Television and a AM/
FM radio. Not so many have a 2 meter radio.

So the typical placement might be as such:

Some place has an emergency, let's say a modern day version of the New
Madrid earthquake.

We'll likely be looking at some different teams heading into the area.
There will be lots of first responders, like National guard,
firefighters, Medical personnel, and the like. There will probably be
some Hams also. News teams will be there.

Each group will be doing it's thing. The Hams will likely be passing
along messages for the sort of thing I mentioned above, another part
will be getting messages to the outside world about "We're still
around". It's possible that the cell system functioned perfectly in
your area, but typically the post disaster scenario has been one in
which everyone is calling to see if their relatives are doing okay. If
the cell towers still have electricity, they get clogged quickly, if
they don't, their backup systems go down after a while. While we may
communicate via cell if it is working, I don't know of anyone who has
cell phones in their disaster comm plans.

So anyhow, I think you might be mistaking other groups issues, like
the broadcasting and newscasting industries with the job of setting up
radio stations and passing along messages for health and welfare. Hams
aren't usually on the front lines, they're just performing a part in
the process.

And yes, a large part of why they are doing it is both that the
infrastructure that might be used otherwise fails, and that while it
might look effortless, there is knowledge that ends up being a big
help in getting the message through that has been lost by the idea
that the communicator only need to know how to talk, and that
technology can fill in for the missing knowledge.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Feb 4, 12:45�pm, "Michael J. Coslo" wrote:
The amateurs are not there to provide news via satellite, or to do
television shows. We're not part of public safety or broadcast
stations.

We're there to pass along communications behind the scene.

Where this shows up is in the how of our work. It isn't glamorous, to
be sure. But in most cases, a satellite reporter from some disaster
scene is going to be there to give a news report. Not so likely a
request for say, shovels and toilet paper. It's all part of post
disaster work.

All true.

There's also the fact that Amateur Radio emergency communication really
is "When All Else Fails".

What I mean is that if I see a situation on the road which requires
police, fire and/or ambulance help, I'll first try the cell phone, not
the 2 meter autopatch.

If there's a hurricane, ice storm, etc., and email still works, most
folks (including me) will use it. Etc.

Where Amateur Radio steps in is when those things don't work, or are
inadequate.

Of course when Amateur Radio really is needed and doing the job, the
hams involved aren't going to be making sure they get on camera.

Broadcast stations are in a similar state. Their part is more likely
to give people info about avoiding the areas in question, or
evacuation routes to follow. Amateurs wouldn't be doing
that, because
there isn't a receiving end. Most everyone has a
Television and a AM/
FM radio. Not so many have a 2 meter radio.

Not only that, but broadcasting to the general public isn't the job of
Amateur Radio.

a modern day version of the New
Madrid earthquake.

We'll likely be looking at some different teams
heading into the area.
There will be lots of first responders, like National guard,
firefighters, Medical personnel, and the like. There will probably
be
some Hams also. News teams will be there.

Each group will be doing it's thing. The Hams will likely be passing
along messages for the sort of thing I mentioned
above, another part
will be getting messages to the outside world about "We're still
around".

Filling in as the need arises and resources are available.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 2/3/2010 12:43 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Over a number of years they succeeded in all but eliminating the
concept of the skilled, knowledgeable, *licensed* Radio Operator.

[snip]

On the commercial radio operator demise part, I'd have to say that you
want to listen in my area to hear the results. One company owns all
the radio stations in my area, with the exception of the Public
station.. The only one I bother to listen to other than the Public
station is the local ESPN sports station. They regularly go off the
air for long periods of time, play the satellite feed message, or my
favorite, play two feeds at once. The funny thing is that the most
listened to station in the area is guess who, the public station. They
still have engineers, they still monitor their output, and they
actually take input from their listeners.

That deregulation, that getting rid of skilled employees, did it work
when we have 8 or 9 stations that are horribly undependable, and most
everyone, even people who hate to admit it, listen to the public radio
station?

Ah, but you _CAN_ hear all the "undependable" stations, right? Are they
still able to play whatever they choose, free from interference caused
by other stations?

By brother, W3TDH, is fond of saying that "The government's job is to
protect you from your neighbor's folly, not your own." So long as each
station is within it's assigned channel and producing acceptable
signals, the rest is a commercial matter that the public will decide
indue course.

This _IS_ related to Amateur Radio: if my neighbor complains of RFI,
and I'm sure that my station isn't at fault, I get to tell him to buy
better equipment. I'd always do what I could to eliminate the problem
first, by recommending filters, etc., but in the end the government
protects _me_ from my _neighbor's_ folly when he bought cheap carp at a
discount.

Bill, W1AC

--
(Filter QRM for direct replies)

On Feb 4, 8:03 pm, Bill Horne wrote:
On 2/3/2010 12:43 AM, Michael J. Coslo wrote:

On Jan 31, 8:19 pm, wrote:

Over a number of years they succeeded in all but eliminating the
concept of the skilled, knowledgeable, *licensed* Radio Operator.

[snip]

On the commercial radio operator demise part, I'd have to say that you
want to listen in my area to hear the results. One company owns all
the radio stations in my area, with the exception of the Public
station.. The only one I bother to listen to other than the Public
station is the local ESPN sports station. They regularly go off the
air for long periods of time, play the satellite feed message, or my
favorite, play two feeds at once. The funny thing is that the most
listened to station in the area is guess who, the public station. They
still have engineers, they still monitor their output, and they
actually take input from their listeners.

That deregulation, that getting rid of skilled employees, did it work
when we have 8 or 9 stations that are horribly undependable, and most
everyone, even people who hate to admit it, listen to the public radio
station?

Ah, but you _CAN_ hear all the "undependable" stations, right? Are they
still able to play whatever they choose, free from interference caused
by other stations?

Actually, no. Some go away for while, then come back. One of them is
fond of playing two feeds simultaneously. I think the term is "racing
to the bottom". In any event, they are not available all the time.

The really interesting part (and this isn't regulations, but just a
funny contract quirk, is that when the local football team is playing,
most of them have the exact same signal.


By brother, W3TDH, is fond of saying that "The government's job is to
protect you from your neighbor's folly, not your own." So long as each
station is within it's assigned channel and producing acceptable
signals, the rest is a commercial matter that the public will decide
indue course.

I mostly agree, at least in principle. My only problem is that some
times people will speak of deregulation when they actually mean a
shift of resources from one end to another. In the case of commercial
radio, we've gone from one monopoly of control by the F.C.C. to just a
couple of groups owning almost all the stations. So it's a monopoly of
regulations, to a monopoly of something else. The quality of the
product has deteriorated immensely. The question is that when a large
group of stations fail, and after all who is going to listen to two
feeds at the same time, how many will come back?


This _IS_ related to Amateur Radio: if my neighbor complains of RFI,
and I'm sure that my station isn't at fault, I get to tell him to buy
better equipment. I'd always do what I could to eliminate the problem
first, by recommending filters, etc., but in the end the government
protects _me_ from my _neighbor's_ folly when he bought cheap carp at a
discount.

I don't usually comment on typos, Bill, but I was scratching my head
for a while on this one. Carp? Fish?

I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, and I just had to laugh at my
first interpretation. I'm in need of a dope slap..... 8^)

- 73 de Mike N3LI -