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?

- 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.

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^)