Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"N2EY" wrote in message ... [triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread] To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio used to get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs hearing hams on AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new hams slowed down (in part) because of that change. So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ... From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc. Plain RTTY is still very much in use, thank you. Yes, I know ... but that's a CHOICE, just as using CW or any other mode is a choice. AMTOR is pretty much dead, I am told. Certainly not as popular as it once was, but I don't think it's entirely "dead." Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming affordable. Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff. However, still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements. It wasn't lectures or laws that got hams to change, it was demonstrations by other hams. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a BIG difference between wholesale abandonment of a mode (Spark - CW, AM - SSB) or the outlawing of a mode (Spark) than there is in simply removing the Morse test requirement. Removing the Morse test requirement does not take away any operating privs from anyone ... it does not disallow the choice to use Morse. It simply removes a requirement that is extremely dissinteresting (and in some cases difficult) for many people. There's a BIG difference in the comparisons. Nobody is proposing a regulatory change that will prohibit or in any way restrict the USE of Morse ... OH YES THEY ARE!!!! Check this out from ARRL's coverage of the VEC gathering: "Maia's proposal suggested upgrading all current Tech and Tech Plus licensees to General and allowing their use of all bands. Beginner licensees should be granted call signs from the NA-NZ#xxx call sign block, he said. Both Maia and Neustadter suggest ways to streamline the number of license classes. Maia offered up the possibility of asking the FCC to eliminate the Morse testing requirement immediately, easing code exam format restrictions" here it comes: "and giving serious thought to dropping CW-only subbands as well." The only CW-only subbands are on 6 and 2 meters. I don't think those are the subbands Freddy wants to drop. I think he means "CW/data subbands" - on HF. I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at 6m/2m. Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed. While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it will NOT propose any changes in band segmentation. all that's being asked for is to eliminate the test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the best interest of the future of ham radio. That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page. It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps from ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in amateur regulation at the FCC. Nobody is being forced to do anything ... in fact, the proposed/anticipated change will STOP forcing folks to do something that many don't want to do ... So, the "None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change." argument doesn't hold water Jim. Sure it does. The point being that none of the historic changes you cite involved rules changes. The elimination of spark did ... and my "None ... by regulatory change" was meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING on anyone by regulatory change. Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today ... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when buying parts in small quantities. And it's a throwaway. I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work with SMT" is bogus ... the ARRL website has a lot of good info on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools. It just takes a different technique. Does that mean I think homebrewing should roll over and die? CERTAINLY NOT ... But how will homebrewing survive? How many amateur radio HF or VHF transceivers have you designed and built, Carl? If it's not worth your time and effort, how can the rest of us be expected to do it? Now that the WRC is over, my business travel schedule will be less demanding (hard to work on home projects when you're away from home for 5 weeks). My first priority for the rest of the summer/early fall is to get up at least one, preferably two, tower(s) and some better antennas than what I have now for HF, plus a good set of VHF/UHF antennas ... Once that is done, or work stopped due to weather, I plan to get down to brass tacks on designing/building some gear. It will NOT be "conventional," but it will be designed to be amenable to reduction to kit form for those who'd like to build their own. the introduction of the no-code Tech license; Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a techno revolution. If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the no-code tech license, the ham population would be something like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ... That presumes none of them would have gotten licensed if the rules hadn't changed. That's not reasonable. You're saying that we'd be down to ~257,000 hams by now if not for the changes to the Tech. I had intended to say 1/2 to 2/3 ... the 1/2 would be worst case ... Carl - wk3c |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS MOTOROLA RADIO'S | Equipment | |||
FS MOTOROLA RADIO'S | Equipment | |||
MOTOROLA RADIOS for Sale! | Equipment | |||
FS MOTOROLA RADIOS HT1000'S , VISAR'S ,& MAXTRAC'S | Equipment | |||
50 Ohms "Real Resistive" impedance a Misnomer? | Antenna |