From: on Fri 5 Aug 2005 09:36


John Smith wrote:
Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!"

Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying.

Jimmie! That's called "the Sin of Omission!" Ain't "lying."

The ARRL does that a LOT.

Of course, to you, the ARRL always tells the "truth" and all others
are "liars." [or, at least, a "form" of liars...]

Tsk, you've gone over to the Dark Side wherein Stebie dwells.

Here's the whole story:

I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in
"200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time.

...and, to you, the ARRL "tells the only truth!" :-)

(have you done so?)

The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts.

True, the ARRL "history" omits a LOT of facts. According to
you, omitting facts is equivalent to LYING! Tsk, tsk.



To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important to
understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham radio
almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated efforts
of a few enthusiasts.

"Hiram Goes To Washington, Saves Ham Radio!" :-)

Hello? You've heard of the Radio Club of America? Formed in
1909 and still active.

Ever hear of Thomas H. White? He's got a very detailed lengthy
website on the History of Radio in the United States. Covers
Everything in radio.

Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until 1927. The
1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands.

Did that disturb you at the time or were you indifferent to
your design of state-of-the-art ham radios?

There's more Real History of "treaty" matters at the ITU
(International Telecommunications Union) website. A UN body,
the ITU superseded the CCITT for international communications.

By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost
all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham
transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham receiver
was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed, but few
hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years.

Tell us all about the Great Depression, Jimmie. You were THERE,
right? Your Dad was unemployed during the Depression, right?

Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not
considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more
like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual
typewriters for highspeed copy).

You are familiar with "almost all radio services?" Tell us about
"Type C Carrier" that was the first modulation source of the first
SSB transmission contents, such as from Hilversum to the Netherlands
Antilles.


But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham radio. The
number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935 there were
over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years
earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per year.

Tsk. You forgot a "minor" item...The Communications Act of 1934
and the newest U.S. radio regulating agency, the FCC. You can
read about that on the FCC's own webpage along with some historical
letters (some from FDR) concerning who should control what in
interstate and international communications (which includes radio).

Of course, if you wanted to read a LOT more on the Real History
of Electronics, you could hustle on down to a technical library
and peruse McGraw-Hill's ELECTRONICS magazine anniversary issue
of April 17, 1980.

In that ELECTRONICS issue you'll find a few facts such as the
public's identification with radio growing by leaps and bounds
now that AM broadcasting had become widespread. "Hams" really did
have OTHER forms of information input other than the ARRL...

This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little technical
knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a
veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of
interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services
threatened the existence of ham radio.

Wow, sounds like Hams of the 20s and 30s were just like CBers!

The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough to pass
the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of proper
design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of these
newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of their
knowledge and skills became apparent.

Wow, sounds like the Hams of the 20s and 30s were now Just Like
the lowly underclass Technicians!!

The newly formed FCC was concerned, as was the ARRL.

The FCC was "concerned?" Really? Big "fans" of Hams, were they?

Formed in 1934, the FCC was still getting its act together in those
early thirties and so was the rest of the federal government.
There's
LOTS MORE politics involved with ALL forms of communications at the
time, not JUST the simplistic involvement of radio amateurs.

The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the code
speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more
comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by
the NCI article.

Does WT Docket 05-235 concern itself with WRITTEN TESTS? NO!

The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or
deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of
newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills
and knowledge.

Crap! The ARRL was then LED by the morsemen and, through its profit
in publishing amateur-related periodicals and handbooks could afford
legal representation in DC to swing government decisions its way.
T.O.M. survived into the thirties and prior to that, as a virtual
president-for-life, had gathered around him fellow morsemen to
spread the "CW" word.

"CW" technology was simpler than AM and the publisher's editors
could understand the simpler stuff. The "advanced technology"
information out of Newington at the time was very basic stuff.
Ready-built amateur radio products weren't much
better...regenerative
receivers like the National Radio "Thrillbox!" (what a name!) and,
what few AM ham rigs existed used the brute-force audio power
amplifier to swing the final amp's plate supply. Wow! "high tech!"
The superheterodyne receiver was invented in 1918 and the Phase
Locked Loop in 1932...

Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes
sense.

Looking at the COMPLETE PICTURE will only make a mockery of what
the ARRL chooses to tell hams. COMPLETE, Jimmie, not the spoon-
fed pap interspersed with self-congratulatory League praise of
itself. Things have CHANGED now, Jimmie, and there's lots of free
Real History available for everyone on the Internet. One very good
place to start is:

http://earlyradiohistory.us

by Thomas H. White, a huge collection of information, many scans
of documents covering early radio history from 1897 to 1926. It
is not colored or spin-doctored as some membership organization's
"histories" are for self-promotion purposes.

The History page of the FCC's own website has more. [FCC is not
a membership organization]

job non

From: John Smith on Sat 6 Aug 2005 10:13

Mike:

As usual, you got everything backwards... digital is not analog, end of
story.

Easy do, John, the Coslonaut is "reaching for the edge of space!"

The modem on the mic just points out hams are too lazy, or two limited to
even be able to kludge a simple digital project together, when the parts
are just laying around. Hell, you have to use such stuff, real digital
equip is few are far between and there are so few hams the call for such
equip is almost non-existant, and that is sure not much motivation for
manufacturers to build any!

Witness the comments on a previous thread about the "Sienna,"
a new HF transceiver built around a PC-on-a-card. It is not
"real radio" to some of these MMMs so they decry it. However,
this small DZ outfit chose to remove its first kit from its
product line called the "PSKUBE." That one was essentially a
PC with built-in LCD screen display and detachable keyboard
designed expressly to work with PSK31 or any other common
TTY format...full HF receiver and QRP (sorta) transmitter.
Apparently the demand for the PSKUBE was so low that it would
not have been profitable for DZ to continue marketing it.

Your arguments are lame, you are confused, you are just ****ed that some
real numbers are going to come to amateur radio. You know the old brass
pounders are going to be setting out there chatting with the fewer and
fewer of themselves which survive each and every new coming year, time is
their enemy and the hope of progress...

Coslo seems to have but one aim: Winning points in message
exchanges. Doesn't matter what the subject matter is, he
will swing either way to win a round. shrug

win non

b.b.:

Trust me, the internet gets through when CW will not...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:24:09 -0700, b.b. wrote:


wrote:
From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm

John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!"

When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License,
that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said
that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi!
It's always been a barrier.

True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal
radio regulations about amateur radio.

Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It
may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be
a bit too much to hope for...

too for


If code testing is good for people who just want to use voice modes, it
must be doubly good for those who want to use CW.

CW gets through when everything else does.

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Anyone with a computer can grab the statistics off the FCC and arrl sites,
who is left which trusts them, if you, don't include me.

I trust them and you are excluded. I know much about the FCC and the
ARRL. I don't know a thing about you, nor would I trust you.

No, I was born at different time, when you got real data, real numbers,
real people to stand behind it, I understand the youngsters might be
confused by all this, but all us old timers have a real past when
everything was different. We have a bit more "history" to go by....

If you told the truth in stating your age, I'm about a year older. So
you weren't born at a differeent time. I'm still getting real data and
real numbers. I have no reason to doubt the numbers. Each radio
amateur has a published name and address. If you'd like to randomly
sample for accuracy, start writing to a number of them.

I guess you can just chuck me into the "conspiracy nuts" group...

I'd already done so.

I don't
trust the figure, politicians, and news anymore...

That probably accounts for the pseudonym.


if I have to
appoligize for it, so be it... but don't consider it a half-felt one...

A man should never have to apologize for being a conspiracy nut. It
marks him as a rugged individualist.

Frankly, I like progress, don't much care for liars and "spin doctors."

If you don't pay attention to figures, politicians and the news, how do
you know we're making progress?

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:26 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc...

Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

John

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

Dave Heil

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the
70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those
oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse
than imagined in my worst nightmare!

It's a nice story. It is a pity that t'ain't true. I've run pileups
spanning five to seven KHz for as long as six hours at a time, working
200-300 CW QSOs per hour. That happened as recently as 2000. DXing and
contesting aren't games about twenty and thirty years ago, they're
about what you've done lately. Contest scores have gotten bigger. The
top scorers work more stations than were worked two or three decades ago.
There are domestic scores now which top the world high scores of that
many years ago.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do
you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up
some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!


This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary
importance to opinion.

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go
along, so why do it?

It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for
invisible facts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner
as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but
along the same lines
Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way
to HF digital soon. 8^)

Dave K8MN

Dave:

From your text and exchanges here, I'd venture to say you are below
average, most likely a C student though high school and no degree, but
possibly an AA at some community college...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:32:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Anyone with a computer can grab the statistics off the FCC and arrl sites,
who is left which trusts them, if you, don't include me.

I trust them and you are excluded. I know much about the FCC and the
ARRL. I don't know a thing about you, nor would I trust you.

No, I was born at different time, when you got real data, real numbers,
real people to stand behind it, I understand the youngsters might be
confused by all this, but all us old timers have a real past when
everything was different. We have a bit more "history" to go by....

If you told the truth in stating your age, I'm about a year older. So
you weren't born at a differeent time. I'm still getting real data and
real numbers. I have no reason to doubt the numbers. Each radio
amateur has a published name and address. If you'd like to randomly
sample for accuracy, start writing to a number of them.

I guess you can just chuck me into the "conspiracy nuts" group...

I'd already done so.

I don't
trust the figure, politicians, and news anymore...

That probably accounts for the pseudonym.


if I have to
appoligize for it, so be it... but don't consider it a half-felt one...

A man should never have to apologize for being a conspiracy nut. It
marks him as a rugged individualist.

Frankly, I like progress, don't much care for liars and "spin doctors."

If you don't pay attention to figures, politicians and the news, how do
you know we're making progress?

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 03:34:26 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dee:

I differ with that figure, I think it is inflated about half, this is
VERY apparent when tuning the bands... something is OBVIOUSLY wrong with
that figure. I suspect it is like our "unemployment figure" here in the
USA, that ONLY depicts those who are "drawing" unemployment, not those who
have used up their unemployment, only worked part time and are not
eligible, those who have given up on looking for work, etc...

Those figures are "cooked" and those in the know--KNOW IT!

John

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do you
think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up some
massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!

Dave Heil

Dave:

A useful figure here would be the percentage of hams who contest... Dee
seems to think all 600,000 (and yes, I don't think that figure is even
close to correct) do...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:40:39 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Nope, never have seen all the bandwidths in as much use as back during the
70's and early 80's, did you have a ticket back then? My gawd, those
oldtimers have forgotten what a real "pileup" means! Congestion worse
than imagined in my worst nightmare!

It's a nice story. It is a pity that t'ain't true. I've run pileups
spanning five to seven KHz for as long as six hours at a time, working
200-300 CW QSOs per hour. That happened as recently as 2000. DXing and
contesting aren't games about twenty and thirty years ago, they're
about what you've done lately. Contest scores have gotten bigger. The
top scorers work more stations than were worked two or three decades ago.
There are domestic scores now which top the world high scores of that
many years ago.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Maybe I am mistaken!!! They aren't counting dead hams by any chance, are
they? (and, they most CERTAINLY ARE!)

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:45:50 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

You purport to be an active radio amateur and you didn't even have a
realistic idea of how many hams there are in the United States? Do
you think the FCC and ARRL are in collusion and they've whipped up
some massive coverup of the number of licensees? Sheesh!


This approach has been in evidence early on. Facts are of secondary
importance to opinion.

If we are told that there are not the number of hams claimed on the
database, then that is the truth. If that means that the FCC is lying,
that is the truth.

If we are told that the only thing needed to go digital on HF is to
hook up that 56K modem to the rig, then that is the truth.

If we are told that Ham radio is dying, then that is true.

You can't argue with someone who makes up the facts as they go
along, so why do it?

It is tough to beat an anonymous man with invisible sources for
invisible facts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Jim might note that they do some bandwidth tricks in similar manner
as he proposed per our conversation in here earlier. Not exact, but
along the same lines
Hopefully we will see an article from those who know the right way
to HF digital soon. 8^)

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
b.b.:

Trust me, the internet gets through when CW will not...

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:24:09 -0700, b.b. wrote:


wrote:
From: b.b. on Aug 5, 4:12 pm

John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN LIARS!"

When Hans proposed that in the brave new world of a No-Code HF License,
that one should have to take a Morse Code Test to use CW, Jim/N2EY said
that a Morse Code Test would be a -barrier- to Morse Code use. Hi!
It's always been a barrier.

True for many, Brian...and unworthy of keeping in federal
radio regulations about amateur radio.

Also true is that Jimmie has never refuted that quotation. It
may be that he has come to believe reality? Well, that may be
a bit too much to hope for...

too for


If code testing is good for people who just want to use voice modes, it
must be doubly good for those who want to use CW.

CW gets through when everything else does.

But, but, but...

You'll get told that the internet is as unreliable as cellular
telephones.