In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more growth
or not?

For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US amateur
radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks and US census data.:

US Hams:

1970: 270,000
1980: 350,000
1990: 514,000
2000: 680,000

Growth Rate:

1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)

Oddly enough, percentage growth slowed down after the introduction of code test
waivers and the Tech lost its code test. The total net growth in the '90s was
almost exactly the same as in the '80s, even though the US population was
larger.


As a percentage of the total US population:

Year - US population/annual growth - US hams - % hams
1970: 203 million 270,000 0.133%
1980: 227 million 350,000 0.154%
1990: 249 million 514,000 0.206%
2000: 281 million 680,000 0.242%

US hams as a percentage of population increased 0.021% in the '70s, 0.052% in
the '80s and 0.036% in the '90s. So the growth slowed down after the
introduction of code test waivers and the Tech lost its code test.

It stands to reason that if code testing were an 'unnecessary, arbitrary, and
distasteful (to many) barrier to entry', those who were interested, but
dissuaded by those unnecessary barriers would "jump in." when the 'barriers'
were eliminated. Except that's not what happened, in either absolute number of
hams or percentage growth. Growth in total hams was almost exactly the same
during the '90s, compared to the '80s, and the percentage growth actually
dropped.

Current number of US hams is about 687,000. Current US population is left as an
exercise for the reader.

as Alun has said, the Morse test is a "no sell" for
many folks who would otherwise make fine hams.

I think the salesperson can have a lot to do with whether a sale is made or
not...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Dick,

EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there
have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom
and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ...

There have also been predictions and promises of a "brave new world"
that the new changes would bring. Which also did not come to pass.

I would submit that the change from spark to CW was a big, progressive
change.

Sure. Hams did it voluntarily.

Likewise the change from AM to SSB.

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.

From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc.

Plain RTTY is still very much in use, thank you. AMTOR is pretty much dead, I
am told. Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Did these changes come about overnight? No.

Actually, the change from spark to CW took only a few years.

When hams got back on the air in 1919, the dream station was a 200 meter spark
kilowatt with rotary gap, kickback preventer, etc. Good for 1000 miles when
everything worked. Within 5 years such a station was an antique, replaced by a
CW set on the shortwaves (80, 40, even 20 meters) using a tube of much lower
power but much greater performance. Two things convinced hams of that era to
change: the 1921 Transatlantic Tests, where the superiority of CW vs Spark was
demonstrated in the number of stations heard by Godley in Scotland, and the
first shortwave transatlantic QSO in 1923 (1XAM and 1MO to French 8AB on 110
meters).

It wasn't lectures or laws that got hams to change, it was demonstrations by
other hams.

Did OTs bitch and whine? Yes.

Where you there? I think not. ;-)

Witness:

conversion from spark to CW;
conversion from AM to SSB;
introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer
thingies";

None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change. Hams adopted
them voluntarily. For example, spark wasn't outlawed for hams until
1927, even though it was essentially abandoned by hams by 1923 or 24.

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.

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.

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.

AM is still popular on HF - in fact, more popular than 20-30 years
ago. What caused hams to abandon AM in large numbers was the simple
fact that an SSB transceiver was less expensive than an AM
receiver-transmitter combo of equal effective power. That transition
also drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams.

What drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams
is a combination of the following:

1) technology got more "complicated" for the uninitiated

And for the initiated. Yet we hams are supposed to keep up with technology, are
we not? A lot of the reasons given for dropping the code test by NCVEC are
about "technically qualified persons" and "advanced technology" and all that.
Yet what does it matter how "technically qualified" someone is if all they do
as a ham is use manufactured equipment in well established ways like HF SSB?
What is the essential difference between a Ph.D in EE ham using a Yaesu and a
bus driver using an Icom?

2) parts got harder to buy at reasonable prices in small
quantities

Not really. Compare the cost of parts in old catalogs compared to new ones -
then adjust for inflation. $100 for a ham rig in 1958 doesn't sound like much
until you realize that back then $5200/year was a good middle class annual
salary. At that level, $100 was a week's gross pay.

Of course if one is used to seeing the prices paid by manufacturers for
quantities in the thousands and up range, the single-unit prices are
outrageous. Always been that way. Which is howcum Heath could undercut homebrew
on things like power transformers 40+ years ago.

3) the performance and quality of "store-bought" gear
improved and at the same time the cost in (adjusted) $
dropped dramatically.

That I can agree with - sort of. The best-performing HF transceiver for under
$2000 today, however, is a kit.

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.

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?

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.

For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US amateur
radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks:

US Hams:

1970: 270,000
1980: 350,000
1990: 514,000
2000: 680,000

Growth Rate:

1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)

Oddly enough, percentage growth slowed down after the introduction of code test
waivers and the Tech lost its code test. The total net growth in the '90s was
almost exactly the same as in the '80s, even though the US population was
larger.

Do you have numbers to disprove the above?

Since the restructuring of 2000, we're up about 12,000 hams. In three years and
three months.

And no techno revolution, either. Who gave us PSK-31 and APRS?

When you start out with an old, greying demographic (and I'm
no "spring chicken"), if there are no newcomers, the population
can only drop dramatically.

Sure. But you assume there will be no newcomers solely because of the code
test. The facts say differently.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

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."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

It's up to the homebrewers to make it happen. But there are not many
of us homebrewers any more.

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.

Sure. Apples and oranges. So it's not a valid analogy.


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.

Sure. Apples and oranges. So it's not a valid analogy. Here's a better
comparison:

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

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.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?
Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

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 ...

No, it didn't. By the time it was outlawed, hams already had given it
up. The changeover went very fast, driven by the simple fact that a CW
station which cost X dollars would get much better results than a
spark station that cost X dollars. This also coincided with the moves
to the "short waves".

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

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).

Sure. And that's life for most of us these days.

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 ...

Snow will be here soon. Hard to think about that in August, but it's
on the way.

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.

It will be interesting to see what results.

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 ...

You're saying that one of the reasons for dropping the code test is to
promote growth in the number of hams, and if we don't drop Element 1
we will have no growth. Thank you.

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 ...

2/3 of 514,000 is 342,000. That's less than half of what we have now.
Sorry, those numbers don't add up.

Your prediction is based on the invalid assumption that if the Tech
had kept its code test we would have gotten no newcomers. Yet we had
almost exactly the same growth in the '90s as in the '80s.

We may soon see what the result of dropping Element 1 will be. I
predict we'll see an initial surge of new hams, then back to the same
slow growth as before.

Then where will the blame be placed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

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

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

I have AMTOR capability, but haven't hooked it up in the 3 years I've
been here in the new house ... used it a lot from the sailboat in the early
90's ...

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak. However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,
so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule. Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.
It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ... I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do. Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how
to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

I wasn't at the NCVEC meeting and am not privy to the discussion/intent
WRT this issue ... I won't presume to speak for Fred in any sort of
definitive, authoritative way ...

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

It is my understanding that there are 13 or 14 VECs in the NCVECs ... ARRL's
rep was there. My understanding is that there was NO opposition to the
NCVEC
petition being filed as written.

Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it
will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

The primary objective is to eliminate Morse testing ... we don't want to
be distracted or delayed by other non-NCI-core issues that will take
more time for the FCC to decide ...

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps
from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Read Roberts' Rules ... I think a lone abstention does not count as
opposition ... to oppose, the party in question would have had to
proactively vote "no." An abstention amounts to "I don't care one
way or the other on this issue." (Or perhaps, "I'm not *allowed* to
vote one way or the other," when the voter is someone's employee.)

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

The digital domain is moving closer and closer to the antennna ... folks who
want to design and build need to start thinking in new paradigms ... like "I
buy some off the shelf RF ICs, A/D and D/A converters and I hook them
up with an FPGA that I've programmed, maybe a uController ... or an
interface to a PC (maybe Ethernet) and I have a programmable radio that
can be whatever I want it to be ...

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

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio???

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

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

I don't think so ...

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

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

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

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

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

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

I have AMTOR capability, but haven't hooked it up in the 3 years I've
been here in the new house

I'll take that as "NONE"

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

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

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

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

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

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

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

Which may or may not optimize performance.

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak.

That's good.

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

So do most of us.

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

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

Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

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

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

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

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.

So how would you have implented it?

It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds

Speed. 20 wpm.

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

for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ...

That's simply not true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is simply not valid.

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

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

I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do.

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

Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how
to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

Not just newcomers - everyone.

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

I wasn't at the NCVEC meeting and am not privy to the discussion/intent
WRT this issue ... I won't presume to speak for Fred in any sort of
definitive, authoritative way ...

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

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

It is my understanding that there are 13 or 14 VECs in the NCVECs ... ARRL's
rep was there. My understanding is that there was NO opposition to the
NCVEC
petition being filed as written.

That's not the question I asked.

Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

They want to determine policy.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it
will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

The primary objective is to eliminate Morse testing ... we don't want to
be distracted or delayed by other non-NCI-core issues that will take
more time for the FCC to decide ...

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

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps
from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Read Roberts' Rules ... I think a lone abstention does not count as
opposition ... to oppose, the party in question would have had to
proactively vote "no." An abstention amounts to "I don't care one
way or the other on this issue." (Or perhaps, "I'm not *allowed* to
vote one way or the other," when the voter is someone's employee.)

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

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

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

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

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

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

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

The digital domain is moving closer and closer to the antennna ... folks who
want to design and build need to start thinking in new paradigms ... like "I
buy some off the shelf RF ICs, A/D and D/A converters and I hook them
up with an FPGA that I've programmed, maybe a uController ... or an
interface to a PC (maybe Ethernet) and I have a programmable radio that
can be whatever I want it to be ...

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

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

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

Now, now. Rev. Jimmie LIVED THOSE TIMES. He KNOWS.

:-)

I'm sorry that W9ERU hadn't retired, moved out west and become
K7DI, then, eventually, did the SK. Gene Hubbell and his partner
in H&H Electronics did great business selling boxes after boxes
of surplus ARC-5 units and BC-348s back in 1947. Back then,
"surplus" was a Big Thing and many hams restarted or got started
on converted surplus radios. World War 2 was over in 1945 and
the Korean War hadn't started yet (1950).

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

It's difficult for even old-timers to understand a postwar boom period and
the Cold War getting hotter when they've just reached First Grade. :-)

You ARE right, but some of these holier-than-thou old-timers lived in
a different reality.


"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

The rest of the radio-electronics industry calls them "RF Modems" but
you have to remember you are talking to a holier-than-thou old-timer
who may think that amateur radio operates by different physics than
all other radio. shrug


And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

Carl, I don't think that QST or QEX have described "I/Q baseband"
radio systems. Such doesn't exist in AMATEUR radio so it doesn't
help to argue the points. Never mind that one in two Americans now
have cell phones and they are all little radios using that system. :-)

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak. However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,
so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule. Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

The holier-than-thou old-timers insist on the "no-coders" to do all
the technical advancements in amateur radio. Never mind that they
weren't able to do much in a half century. :-)



I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.
It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ... I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do. Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

The holier-than-thou old-timers won't hear of "being nice" to newcomers.

They have achieved TITLE, STATUS, Rank and Privelege and can sign
their callsign behind their names (just like nobility). They are Very
Important exhalted People who are "superior!"

Nobility suffers the peasantry, poor things.


Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

Hmphhh...if NCVEC is "NOT" an authoritative source, why in the hell
are they given full power to make up ALL the written exam questions
and answers?!?



That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot "build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts
of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification, and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

What is already being done NOW is using things like a PIC micro-
controller (a microprocessor plus some extra I/O interface) from
Microchip, Inc. They supply a full Assembler software program FREE
for download. Major distributors (Digi-Key, Allied, Mouser, etc.) stock
PIC microcontrollers. They've been used in all sorts of radio-related
projects which can be seen on the Web.

That sort of thing is anathema to the holier-than-thou old-timer who
insists on EVERYTHING being the SAME as when he was young.
They bitch and whine about "digital" as if it were a dirty word and they
don't and won't LEARN new things. Why should they? They already
have Title, Rank, Status in amateurism and "real radios glow in the
dark" like back in the 1950s.


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

Think "The Emperor's New Clothes." Yes, it doesn't "suit" them at all.

When their morsemanship skills are worn out and they take off that
outer clothing, they aren't wearing anything of knowledge underneath.

I think some in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service are still making
coils on round Quaker Oats cartons and finding the "sweet spot" on
their galena crystals so they can hear DX from the next county...

LHA

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

The ARRL first proposed what became incentive licensing in 1963. It
was *not* well received. The upturn after incentive licensing was
implemented appears to be more of a 'well, they actually did it.
Might as well get on with life.' reaction than a positive result of
the change.


A couple of thoughts from this:

1. It appears likely that the overall attitude of *existing* hams may
affect ham growth more than licensing changes. From what I see, ham
growth stopped not because of licensing changes, but because a large
segment of hams became disgruntled over what was merely a proposed
change (What appears to be a decent description appears in
http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html and
http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html). What that tells me
today is that the future of ham radio is probably going to be affected
more by the attitudes of existing hams than it is by the exact nature
of the entrance exams. If you want to see growth in the numbers and
character of the amateur radio community, it will probably depend more
on whether or not you and hams like you (whether NCTA or PCTA) will
welcome, train, and encourage new hams and prospective new hams than
on squabbling over entrance test requirements. Argue all you want
over the code requirement, but if you really care about the future of
the hobby, pay attention to your own attitudes to other hams and to
prospective hams.

2. If the ham community could 'get on with life' after the squabbling
over incentive licensing, we should be able to do the same after the
code requirement squabbling. It appears there may be hope for the
hobby after all.

Ben

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, N2EY wrote:

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."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Yet SITOR - the commercial version of AMTOR - is the standard HF
mode of data communication in the maritime service. That, and not
obscenenly-expensive satellite comms, is what killed maritime CW.
The ship's purser or deck officers can pull up the preset HF
transceiver channel and pound away, and even personal e-mail is now
sent and received by a SITOR connection to AOL via Globe Wireless,
the successor to RCA and ITT, via an AOL "kiosk" in the recreation
areas. No Radio Officer needed.

One of the San Francisco area marine radio techs, a ham, applied to
the FCC to be able to offer PACTOR service in the marine bands, and
after consulation with the ITU, his request was turned down because
it was not an international standard and would not give that much
improvement over SITOR considering the changes necessary.

And the US Coast Guard and other similar agencies world-wide
continue to transmit NAVTEX bulletins (marine broadcasts) on 518 kHz
worldwide using SITOR.

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Yeah - I can tune SITOR by setting the (suppressed) carrier 2.2 kHz
higher than the channel center and using LSB. Cheapie "FSK".

Going to be "more easier" later on this week when my new Ten-Tec
computer-tuned DSP HF receiver arrives, and I can set the filtering
to just where I want it.

I'm not throwing my AMTOR/SITOR TNCs away just yet.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

Hey, we know that we can get at least 28K or more in a standard
audio channel. But hams are cheap - nobody (including me) wants
to throw away existing 1200 baud radios and TNCs that work really
well for the type of canned messages that we get on packet, unless
they are super-whizzes at Qualcom, with due appolgies to Phil Karn
who fits that description and has done a LOT for digital ham radio
specifically and whom I admire greatly.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, N2EY wrote:

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."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Yet SITOR - the commercial version of AMTOR - is the standard HF
mode of data communication in the maritime service. That, and not
obscenenly-expensive satellite comms, is what killed maritime CW.

Wasn't maritime MF Morse capability mandatory until the satellite based
distress system came online?

The ship's purser or deck officers can pull up the preset HF
transceiver channel and pound away, and even personal e-mail is now
sent and received by a SITOR connection to AOL via Globe Wireless,
the successor to RCA and ITT, via an AOL "kiosk" in the recreation
areas. No Radio Officer needed.

Sure. And the reason all that happened was that the shipping companies decided
to make the inital investment in SITOR equipment, and pay for it with the
salaries of the laid-off radio officers. And as long as the SITOR equipment
does the job and costs less per year, there will be no reason to replace it
with something better.

One of the San Francisco area marine radio techs, a ham, applied to
the FCC to be able to offer PACTOR service in the marine bands, and
after consulation with the ITU, his request was turned down because
it was not an international standard and would not give that much
improvement over SITOR considering the changes necessary.

Exactly - the improvement was judged to be not worth the investment. Since
decisions like this are made at the top and conformity is deemed more important
than what people *want* to do, the existing system is kept.

Which is why you can watch a 2003 TV show on a 50+ year old TV receiver. NTSC,
anyway.

And the US Coast Guard and other similar agencies world-wide
continue to transmit NAVTEX bulletins (marine broadcasts) on 518 kHz
worldwide using SITOR.

Using a system that is almost completely automated.

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Yeah - I can tune SITOR by setting the (suppressed) carrier 2.2 kHz
higher than the channel center and using LSB. Cheapie "FSK".

Going to be "more easier" later on this week when my new Ten-Tec
computer-tuned DSP HF receiver arrives, and I can set the filtering
to just where I want it.

bwaahaahaa

I'm not throwing my AMTOR/SITOR TNCs away just yet.

But how much AMTOR will be found in the HF ham bands today? I daresay not much.
In fact you'll probably find more 60 wpm Baudot RTTY on the ham bands in the
course of a year than you will find AMTOR. (if you count contests).

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

Hey, we know that we can get at least 28K or more in a standard
audio channel.

Sure - if the channel's characteristics are good enough.

There's also the question of what FCC will allow in symbol rate and such.

But hams are cheap - nobody (including me) wants
to throw away existing 1200 baud radios and TNCs that work really
well for the type of canned messages that we get on packet, unless
they are super-whizzes at Qualcom, with due appolgies to Phil Karn
who fits that description and has done a LOT for digital ham radio
specifically and whom I admire greatly.

I disagree with hams being "cheap". It's more a matter of not being able to
write off expenditures. Businesses can depreciate equipment - hams can't. They
can also pay for equipment out of reduced labor and repair cost - hams can't.
Engineering economics 101.

73 de Jim, N2EY