Well, I see you're and older guy. Thought you must be. It takes time to
drive your head that far up your ass.

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
t...

Since I'll be gone in at most 30 years (probably less), it's a moot point
for me. However, I will hazard a prediction that in my remaining lifetime
HF will come to be used by no-one but a few extremely old hams and some
religico stations that exist either as tax write-offs for rich people or
as
deceptions concerning "Spreading the Good News" intended to milk donations
from credulous rednecks (who will of course have no idea what shortwave
is,
just like everyone else.)

Darn! There goes the value of my radio collection!

Leonard


In article ,
(Sidchase3) wrote:

What do yout hink is the future of shortwave and amateur radio in 10,
50,
100 years? Honestly, it's not as necessary as it used to be, but the
ARRL is
right, "When all else fails" shortwave and amateur radio will be there.

I think 3-30mhz is of limited use to corporations and other powerful
interests. It's just not very attractive to them, and the regulatory
bodies
around the world respect it. So I think it's here to stay for a good
long
time.

But the question is, in 100 years, who's going to use it? Will it be a
vacant frequency spread? I sure hope not. It's a great hobby. Yet, I
can't
help but feel that the glory days of shortwave listening has passed me
by.

Thoughts?

-------------
Jeff Wilson
KG6RIF
Los Angeles, California









It's my opinion that what shortwave lacks so desperately is good domestic
programming. By this I don't mean the FM or AM style programming that
saturates the commercial bands. WBCQ is the only secular shortwave
station and
it begins to approach the idea because it offers true variety of thought.
Yes,
there's alot of "juvenilia" boredom there and some people are just
overboard in
their political opinions but the freshness and openess makes the station
unique.

I think domestic shortwave will be successfull when those with strong
viewpoints realize that shortwave is a cost effective way to get news and
views
out on a continent wide scale. It would allow those groups the ability to
own
the means of propagation without having to worry that the "parent
corporation"
was going to cut them off for fear of making waves politically or
socially.
Political correctness would take a back seat.

And no it doesn't mean that the air would be full of programs by the
Aryan
nations, etc. though they certainly would have their share. There are all
sorts
of groups both left and right that would have a say. Some would be NGO's,
some
academic, etc. Even the internet is not a solution for this access
problem
since the means of propagation (i.e. the ISP) could always refuse access
to the
particular group if they stirred up too much controversy. Corporations
don't
like that.

The problem is getting a sufficient number of receivers into peoples
hands. In
an ideal world there would be a $40 to $80 receiver capable of digital
reception and of interfacing with a computer. This would allow the
dissemination of text as well as audio.

Anyway, something to think about.

-Bill

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor