Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 1st 06, 06:36 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid


The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.


Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.


PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.


Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.



  #2   Report Post  
Old October 1st 06, 07:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?


wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 22:36:54 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.


Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.


PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.


Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.


a nice peice of writing stored I may lift a peice or for something I
am working on


Thank you. Feel free to use any part. I would be nice to
get credit for it, a common courtesy.


but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF
would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes
pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams
themslves


"Magic" is a subjective term. The "magic" of HF worldwide comms
dissolved into reality for me in 1953 on seeing such wholesale
"magic" working 24/7 in tying US Army (and other military) into
the large network going back to the states.

"Different strokes for different folks."

ARRL is still fixated on HF and the "magic" of morse. Since they
influence (if not brainwash) as many US hams as they can with
their huge publishing effort, we aren't supposed to negatively
critique them. That's "not nice" to those who've had their brains
washed in that way.

I've seen "real" magic at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, CA. That's
mainly a professional association of magicians/illusionists. One
can't gain entrance without being admitted by a member. I've had
the marvelous opportunity to go in three times there...and be
totally fascinated by the illusions. Whenever I see some ham
bring up "magic" I think of the Magic Castle. A lot of hams ascribe
"magic" to HF comms but that is their own private illusion (or
delusion, as the case may be). Shrug. To each his own but I
don't like others trying to cram Their delusions into everyone.



  #4   Report Post  
Old October 1st 06, 06:15 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?


Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.


Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.


That is true in essence for all those who "work DX on HF
with CW." :-)

Some will point to modern techniques in radio (DDS, PLL
frequency control, solid-state PAs that need no tuning
controls, etc.) as being advancements. Trouble is, those
advancements came from the designers-manufacturers,
advancements to capture market share of ham consumer
electronics. Using only on-off keying with a state-of-the-
art transceiver seems a waste of available resources in
that equipment.

My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.


One in three Americans has a cell phone now
according to the US Census Bureau. Each cell
phone is basically a little two-way radio.

No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)

I just completed an exchange of files (including hi-
resolution photographs) this morning with another
in Europe. Took only a few minutes. The Internet
stretches over most of the globe, is unaffected by any
ionospheric variation. Those files couldn't be
exchanged via "CW" on HF. [maybe the "phase
shift" impairs such information transfer...:-) ]

No "CW" test is needed to use the Internet. :-)

But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio
amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands
below 30 MHz. None of the other radio services
require that. shrug



  #5   Report Post  
Old October 1st 06, 01:56 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,554
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?


wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400,
wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid


The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.


Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.


Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)


It IS the Code.

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.


Telegraph.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.


PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.


ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.


Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.


Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.


Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.





  #6   Report Post  
Old October 1st 06, 06:37 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

wrote:
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400,
wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.


Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."


Heh. But, in here, coders are the only ones with "facts." Anything
a no-coder says is "wrong," "in error" and other endearments. :-)

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.


Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)


It IS the Code.


True enough. But...the coders HAVE their rank-status-
privileges and seem to enjoy looking down on no-coders.
All must do as they did or be called "wrong" or "in error."

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.


Telegraph.


Early radio was just a telegraph system without poles and
wires between stations. Mythical tales have turned early radio
into something greater than rocket science.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.


PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.


ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

Ah, yes, the Great 500 KHz "Experiment." AS IF the 500 KHz
region hasn't ALREADY had 80 years plus of determining
whether or not it works for communications! :-)

Good old League, leading all "Back to the Future." :-)

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.


Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.


Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1


It's about the same as those who love to Re-Enact the
American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War.
Play-acting at "pioneering" over 8 decades after that
frequency region was picked for the first maritime distress
and safety reserved frequency.

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.


Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.


"Ore" from a mine. The pro-coders say "I've got mine, nya-nya."

It's getting to be "Back to the Future, Part Infinity" if things
like the Great 500 KHz Experiment is a sign of things to
come from the "representative of all amateurs" in Newington.

Their other "Experiment" is a "contest" to see who can best
come up with a whole ham station for LESS than $50 in new
part costs. Whoever "wins" that gets a really hefty prize of
$100 cash and Publication in QST! Oh, and it is 40 meters
only, but "allows" SSB voice to be included. :-)



  #7   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 06, 11:25 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400,
wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid


The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.


Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.


In that time, the number of US amateurs has actually dropped by over
17,000.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]


It should be noted that the number 737,938 includes not only those
licenses which were current at the time, but also those which were
expired but in the 2 year grace period. The number of then-current
licenses was about 50,000 lower.

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.


Strange, I hear that response.


It's an echo?

Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)


But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate.


Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance
radiotelephony by 1906. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.


While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.


PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.


What part is not?

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.


Why is that "outmoded"? What has replaced it?

Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.


So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.


What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

The use of call signs? Signal reports? Using only first names?

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

How would you have amateurs operate?

Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional.


So what's the problem with a standard procedures?

Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.


Not true, Len. We're amateurs - but that doesn't mean we have no
standards and no procedures. The use of standard procedures makes it
more fun and easier on everyone involved.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s.


And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.


Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.


Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims).


Who pioneered the use of the HF spectrum, Len?

Who first established two-way HF radio contact?

DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).


The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago. Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO,


Not really.

GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier,


Well, those things are not common, but they're still around.

GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program).


Yet the predictions are not always correct. Openings happen when no
opening is predicted, and predicted openings do not always happen.

Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.


And high-end audio...

So what? Those things are only one part of amateur radio. There's a lot
more.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static.


Of course not. That doesn't mean old things are all bad.

For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW."


The phrase was "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A operators
only". It was used by a now-dead radio amateur who had the callsign
W2OY. He did not use CW - he was an AM-only operator of the 1950s and
1960s.

The phrase is remembered because it was so unusual.

"CW" (aka Morse Code) is popular with many radio amateurs, not just
"old timers".

But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."


Is there something wrong with the *use* of Morse Code, Len?

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones.


Actually that number is probably low, considering how many more go into
use every day.

There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes.


Millions?

There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users.


Amateur radio *operators*.

And there lies the difference: Almost all other radio services require
the use of only certified, channelized, no-user-adjustments-possible
equipment. Most of those "millions" or transceivers cited are very low
power and use only a single mode and a few channels. The user has
almost no real control over the operation of the radio. This is most
true in the case of the cell phone/

Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.


Maybe for you, Len. Not for hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs.


But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.


In other words, Len, you want to tell us what we should like and what
we should not like. What we should enjoy and what we should not enjoy.

What is wrong with live and let live?

  #8   Report Post  
Old October 4th 06, 11:19 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.


Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.


I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.


Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.


The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.


You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.


Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.


Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.


Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine? Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

What is wrong with live and let live?

  #9   Report Post  
Old October 5th 06, 05:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 750
Default Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.


I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.


Is that where you obtained yours?

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.


You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews
are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and
some factual errors.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.


Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.


No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the
past five or six years.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)


Why the smiley? Was that a joke?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.


The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.


No smiley here?

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.


That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to
the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities
in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of
the early 1990's.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed.


Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len?
If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems
to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers?

And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.


There's a big difference between designing or building and using
minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have
plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS
systems. Now what?

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.


You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.


Now what?

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.


Neither the Internet ("world wide web")...


Would you like additional time to rethink your statement?

...nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.


Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any
time, Len?

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.


Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.


That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any
nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see
anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours?

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.


Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)


If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?


Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences
with you.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?


I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards.
How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive?

Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a
case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added
a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the
monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day.

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE.


Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this
talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE
member to assemble a computer or use it?

Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]


That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche.

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?


I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should
stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back
together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself.


What is wrong with live and let live?


You've been allowed to live.

Dave K8MN

  #10   Report Post  
Old October 5th 06, 11:39 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default Accuracy, Facts and Opinions

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.


Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.


I wrote a chronological synopsis.


You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
information you left out disproves your conclusions.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"


I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you
do not know. That seems to really bother you.
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like.


I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup.

You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is
flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter
"i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express
such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your
mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact.

You know everything, yes?


Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that
you do not know. That seems to really bother you.

you are a code-tested amateur extra.


There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.


Define "recently."


In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years.

The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.


Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well
over $1000.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)


That's relatively recently, Len.

Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were
even 8 years ago.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.


The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.


Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation
adjusted"?

You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy?

"2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.


No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was
considered obsolete long before 1990.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market.


And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs.

Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.


The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in
their capabilities.

The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display,
network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software
available for it was limited and expensive.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.


You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC?


It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and
what they could do.

Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts?


Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than
$100. In many cases, for no money at all.

My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts
from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach
the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out.

It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw
away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class
machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS
is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It
is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers
that cost more than $2500 new.

Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?


Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.


But *you* haven't done it. I have.

It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago,
approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand
dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.


Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.


Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content
available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.


They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That
sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.


Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy."


Sure they do, Len.

They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.


If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the
tests and you haven't earned the license.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.


Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)


I don't claim to be.

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe?


Because you got the facts wrong, Len.

Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?


Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs
used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do.

If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of
that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch?


I've assembled several from components.

No?


Yes.

I have.


That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems
from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal"
and "computer"

Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me.


That's nice, Len.

Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?


I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead.

But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're
going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
shortwv John Lauritsen Shortwave 0 November 28th 04 07:19 PM
178 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US Albert P. Belle Isle Shortwave 1 November 22nd 04 03:49 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1402 ­ June 25, 2004 Radionews Shortwave 0 June 25th 04 07:32 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1402 ­ June 25, 2004 Radionews General 0 June 25th 04 07:29 PM
214 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (09-APR-04) Albert P. Belle Isle Shortwave 1 April 10th 04 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017