Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 2:18 pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
My focus tends to be increasing the overall population of the users to increase the usage of our allocations, thus justifying them. I'm not persuaded of the validity of that approach for a couple of reasons. 1) There's no shortage of hams. 2) In many cases, simple "usage" has not been sufficient to retain an allocation. Notice for example, television broadcasters (a much more powerful 'lobby' than ham radio) has already been kicked off channels 70 through 83 and are in the process of being kicked off channels 52 through 69. In the near future television broadcasters will also lose the heavily occupied VHF channels. If the politically and financially powerful broadcasting industry could not retain those assignments, how can hams even pretend to be able to make a case based on "population of users" who are for the most part avocational users? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Bonine wrote on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:18:53 EDT:
wrote: How about this, for a two step approach? [to the issue of losing spectrum] 1) Institute a new "top" license class with a "technical quotient" about 3 times as challenging as the current Extra class license, and keep the question pool secret. Holders of this license could experiment on any amateur frequency (with the usual "no deliberate interference" caveat) with any modulation scheme or information encoding scheme without special authorization or STA. How many people do you think would obtain this license? I don't see a latent demand out there for authorization to experiment with modes that require special authorization. I'm afraid that the actual result would be only a tiny number of upgrades, which would serve as evidence that the amateur radio service didn't need the spectrum it has now. I suspect that Hans was doing some subtle leg-pulling. :-) Otherwise I agree with you. There is a very small percentage of licensed radio amateurs who do actual NEW system-technique experimentation, despite the publicity that some get. The new stuff is generally incorporated in a product to be sold. Does the FCC actually monitor the HF bands, particularly the ham bands? I have no idea other that two known possibilities: NTIS EM Survey mobile station; FCC's own remote-operated monitor stations...which might be all-HF. Amateurs are allocated only a fraction of the HF spectrum and, to me, it is difficult to envision the Commission monitoring just the ham bands. I would say the Commission gets most of its input on use from citizens' and special-interest groups' written text. I could be wrong. Both of these ideas attempt to change behavior of the existing populatiion of amateur radio operators. I think it's more important to focus on ideas that expand the population of licensed operators by attracting new people. I wholeheartdly agree with that! Numbers of licensees are rather obvious pointers and the FCC, as grantor of all civil radio licenses, has that information first-hand. What many overlook is that the FCC keeps tabs on all RF emitter use; since they are obligated by law to serve all non-government users, they have to do a balancing act to seek satisfactory compromises on regulations, mitigation of interference. Your focus tends to be showing the regulators that hams are technical innovators, thus they deserve frequency allocations. My focus tends to be increasing the overall population of the users to increase the usage of our allocations, thus justifying them. Both of these techniques work and can be used at the same time. Steve, I'm going with yours. Hans' idea would make the job of the VEC much more complex, increase the record-keeping task at the Commission, and add quite a bit to existing Part 97 regulations. If the Amateur Radio Service got such a specific "open-door to everything" license class, then it would set a precedent for all other radio services. An end result would be a decided loss of regulatory capability by the FCC in regards to all civil radio users. The old days of user chaos in radio might come again with that. New developments have been made under existing regulations. In actual practice, nearly all of new development of ALL radio is done without any RF emission (through any antenna), including reception testing (with/without mixing existing antenna with new-method signals). That's part of what I did for work. Yes, the "final test" is "on the air" but the probability of success prior to that last test is so high it is almost a "sure thing." I really think that the key is communications, or call it public relations or marketing if you wish. It has always struck me as ironic that hams, in a hobby that is basically communications, are generally horrible communicators. My observation for many years, too! :-) For decades, USA ham radio has gotten news of "radio" from a single source: ARRL publications. That's good and well-meaning, but a single source for 700K amateur licensees? Work professionals who are also licensed amateurs have a wealth of information at their disposal in trade journals (most of them free) and publications from other organizations (RSGB, for example) can be had. The major source of news is still the ARRL. The USA might be better served with a second source (at least). We need to motivate existing hams to actually participate in the hobby, and we need to get the message out to potential new licensees that ham radio is an attractive leisure-time activity for them. I would suggest getting advice, even outright production, from documentary film/TV makers. There's two groups of them: general-coverage "broadcast" market; industry-specific. They know their craft, can get the message through to viewers' subconscious. They might not know all about ham radio but most don't know details of what particular thing they are producing for promotion. That's irrelevant since the communication they do is to the viewer's mind, directly, sometimes subliminally, without any need for radios or radio operating skills or techniques. Those documentaries have been ever-present in my lifetime so they would appear to "always have been" to most others. Advertising is a sub-genre of that documentary technique, very concentrated effort to influence viewers/listeners with ideas...and those things really WORK. All of us consumers have been influenced by them, like it or not. Outright production of documentaries might be out of the question due to cost. Those folks are pros, not amateurs, but they KNOW how to do it. The audio-visual impact of their work is STRONG compared to paper mailings. Documentary makers also have an ego as do all connected with "show business." Some might be encouraged to talk about HOW they do their thing, the good techniques, the bad techniques. That might help the planning for an actual film/TV promotion done for less cost. Not my thing but "my town" (L.A.) has a major industry in film/TV production, tens of thousands working in that. I've been acquainted with a few socially. Easy for me to say . . . but I've not personally been very successful at actually *doing* anything. I disagree. I think you've DONE something. You've started a ball rolling, you are aware and concerned. You CARE. That's good in my opinion. 73, Len AF6AY |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 5:45 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
I assume you are playing devil's advocate here Hans? Not really devils advocate, but certainly you can see that some points are overstated for effect. Hopefully this stimulates some thinking outside the old comfortable paradigms we might hold. I'll readily admit that some of my details are not well developed, and maybe even "pin in the sky" in many respects. This is intentional to "shock people out of their tradions" and focus on "things we've never done before. Hopefully my wild-eyed thinking gets you all to see past "the way we've done it before". At the same time, I'm not interested in defending the PBI against "problems" and "we've never done it that way" arguments, or pointless attention to incidental details. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 5:37 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
The 1912 Hams were not put there as a challenge to get them to innovate. That's correct. It wasn't intended as a challenge to strengthen Amateur Radio innovation. Quite the opposite! Hams were banished to those "worthless" (as then considered) wavelengths below 200 meters to get rid of them. Amateur radio was expected to be reduced to oblivion by this move, but in one of those "nasty unintended consequences" you mentioned, Amateur Radio became stronger than ever in consequence. I'm only suggesting perhaps our service, in order to remain a viable PICON entity, could benefit by another similar (but more deliberate, less dibilitating) challenge. Don't get too hung up in the details, but examine the notion from a higher altitude. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 2:18 pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
How many people do you think would obtain this license? Intially, I'm sure it would be a small number. Back in 1963 when I obtained my Extra license, mine was the 48th issued in my district. (Yes, they gave you a numbered certificate!). That was some 12 years after the Extra came available. But my Extra back then didn't carry any additional privileges, no additional frequencies, no special call letters, nothing but a numbered certificate. In contrast, the "super-Extra" which I propose would carry with it a reward in the freedom of almost unlimited experimental exploration, and might appeal to that population of latent scientists and communications inventors which we were often reminded of during the run-up to the removal of the Morse exam. I obviously can't 'crystal ball' how large that population is, but the 'opportunity cost' to find out is certainly not prohibitive. Can't see where it would hurt us, and the potential upside is exciting to me. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 21, 12:20�am, AF6AY wrote:
wrote on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:00:34 EDT: Are we in danger of being the last generation of hams? I'd say no. At my test session of 25 Feb 07 there were at least two teen-agers applying for an amateur radio license. Given that I was born before the FCC was created, the "last" generation would be at least three before me... :-) Perhaps "last era" of Amateurs may have been more appropriate and descriptive. (And if we are, what can we do to eliminate that danger?) What "danger?" I see none. But more on that later. First, a disclaimer. I'm into my fifth decade of being a licensed amateur, and figure I'm good for 3 or 4 more sunspot cycles of fun. I love amateur radio. Well, I've been a licensed commercial radio operator since 1956 and a licensed radio amateur since 2007. It has, in between getting a whole new station set up, been fun. But has been, nonetheless, NOT Amateur related. Trying to parallel Amaeur and Commerical HF radio operation is the proverbial Apples-vs-Oranges argument. No doubt your commercial experience was rewarding on it's own level. Our service will only continue to exist so long as the majority of the worlds national governments believe that we bring value to the public in exchange for the incredibly valuable RF spectrum that is entrusted to our use. I would suggest rewording that to say "bring value to the citizens [of various nations] in terms of their enjoyment and well-being" or something like that. I don't see that an "exchange" of anything is necessary or warranted. But that "exchage" is exactly what's infered, albeit not mandatory in PART 97. Pulling out the Red Book (NTIA) or the big chart in Part 2, Title 47 C.F.R. on which radio service gets what in the EM spectrum, we can find some items for USA citizens that appear to have no intrinsic value whatsoever: 1. 30 KHz bandspace absolutely license free at 160 - 190 KHz. Been there a long time in regulations, sees little use. 2. 400 KHz bandspace for CB (40 channels at "11m") for nothing but Personal Communications. No license required. He avily used on highways, all states. 3. 1.6 MHz (!) bandspace at 72 to 73, 75.4 to 76 MHz, 80 channels for nothing but model air and surface radio control. No license required. A very fun hobby. 4. There's more, also regulated by Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R., such as Family Radio Service unlicensed transceivers, but you get the picture, I'm sure. 5. I'm not even counting the RF emitters of very short range such as the Keyless Auto Entry transmitters (millions) or the Bluetooth earpieces (look, ma, no wires to my cellphon e), the tens of thousands of Wireless LANs that have invaded residences, the "WiFi" links of Internet to PCs, or other RF emitters that make our lives easier now, replacing hard wired or mechanical functions done previously. All of the above services to citizens which could be categorized as "unessential" services since they don't immediately secure their absolute safety or insure their well-being. The above are available in nearly all countries although their authorized frequencies may vary due to their adminstrations' regulations. Items (2) through (5) came into being within the last two decades or so. The model radio control bandspace is only 100 KHz narrower than the worldwide 10m amateur band. Model radio control is pure hobby-amusement and no modeler (that I've heard/seen) makes any claims of supplanting vehicles in case of disaster or emergency, nor is that hobby claimed to be a starting point for any life-long career in using/designing vehicles, boats, or aircraft. All of those allocations you cite are NOT Amateur Radio allocations albeit they are deceidedly in the public interest to exist since the public deamnds it. How is this related to the longevity of the AMATEUR Service? I think if the members of ITU collectively asked "Are the hams of the world doing anything which justifies their generous chunks assigned spectrum?" the honest answer would be "Probably not." I will ask "which chunks in what spectrum?" Hams of the HF persuasion are one group, the "VHF-ers" (and up) are the other. HF has been relatively static in change for at least two decades, and decreased prior to that with many communications services formerly on HF migrating to satellite relay. I'd say by the international press covering numerous uses of the Amateur services recently that you're both incorrect. Also, the the communications that Len refers to as "migrating to satellite relay" are, once again, NOT Amateur Radio functions. Snippage. What are we going to do about that? Speaking from 54 years from my first HF radio experience to becoming a new amateur nearly two months ago and observing EM spectrum use while working in industry in all the time in between, I would say "don't take yourselves so seriously within your radio service!" Amateur radio is a hobby, a fun hobby. If other countries' hobbyists can enjoy some chunks of EM spectrum just for hobbyist fun, then why can't the USA? For many people Amateur Radio is a hobby. For others it is a tool to be used for a greater need. The wide brush applying "hobby" does not fit. As to this whole claim of being a backup communications provider when the infrasture fails in disasters, I have to say show me in a detailed report where it was essential. The Midwest Floods of 1992. Katrina. Rita. Andrew. Spetember 11th. At least accoriding to the NOAA, The American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, The Department of Defense, The Department of State, etc etc etc. Having been required to design electronics for terrible environments, I know that amateur radio equipment isn't going to survive better than the infrastructures' gear. [see May QST for one piece of equipment that didn't survive Katrina...lost with one amateur's entire station] ONE Amateur's...Amateur Radio's greatest strength is in its multiplicty of resources...Every licensee is yet another "facility" from which to draw upon. No one piece of radio gear is indestructable. The COMMERICAL infrastructure's weakness is it's limitied numbers, complexity of technology and it's cost. AMATEUR Radio's strengths are just the opposite. The Public Safety Radio Services have their radios now and use them every day. NOAA has its weather observation services plus satellite downlinks. Funny you mention the NOAA. One of thier "Enviromental Heros" this past Earth Day was an Amateur licensee (KC5EZZ), and he was recognized specificallly for his contributions to NOAA with an extended Amateur Radio net. Harbor and inland waterways have their radio services and plans for emergencies there. The FAA routinely handles aircraft emergencies every week with the aid of radio. Believe it or not, the telephony infrastructure can come back to life when its subscribers stop all trying to use their switching system all at once; they've had battery backup in central offices for more than half a century. Truckers daily help fellow motorists on highways, sometimes alerted over their CBs. Yes, amateur radio CAN be a help in emergencies just as ALL citizens can be a help, with or without any license for anything. There hasn't been any need for trained morse code operators for over a decade for any WWII-era "pool" to help the nation. With anything in radio. The miliaries do adequate training of their members, government radio with theirs. I'd say the salient feature of amateur radio is its ability to introduce newcomers to a fascinating technologically- heavy activity...somethine they can have fun with while learning. For youngsters it MIGHT be a starting point for their eventual working careers. For adults and older folks it can be just fun in itself. There's seemingly some puritanical echoes in the general repeated "reasons" for being IN amateur radio...those leave out the FUN element. I see that as a liability to ham radio promotion, diametrically opposite to being an asset. Is having fun so terrible? Especially having fun while learning a new technology (for newcomers) or new application (for those already experienced)? Perhaps after you've joined some local Amateur clubs and actually get an opportunity to exercise the privileges of your newly acquired license your scope of experience as to what Amateur Radio is, can be, and has been will be enhanced. Recreation IS, to my mind, an asset for all. It is. But no where in Part 97 is the word "recreation" used. That the Amateur Service does provide recreation is a given. But some continue to insist that "recreation" or "hobby use" is ALL that the Amateur Service is required to provide. Almost 100 years of history has proven differently and even in today's techno-saavy society continues to be so. It diverts our stresses from making a living, eases tensions, makes a life experience more enjoyable. If that recreation can also increase individuals' intellectual capacity, I say "so much the better!" Maybe I'm biased having been IN the electronics industry so long (sans 'benefit' of ham license) and maybe because I happen to like the fascinating technology enough that I liked most of my work. It has been a great, stimulating trip for me and it is still happening. It could be for others, too, those who look forward instead of backward to what was, a was that will never be again. There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re- focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 3, 3:52�pm, AF6AY wrote:
From: wrote on Wed 2 May 2007 23:35: On Apr 21, 12:20?am, AF6AY wrote: There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re- focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it! I will politiely ask you to rephrase that paragraph. Request refused due to lack of valid reason to do so. Steve, K4YZ |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 3, 4:52 pm, AF6AY wrote:
From: wrote on Wed 2 May 2007 23:35: On Apr 21, 12:20?am, AF6AY wrote: There's still plenty of time for you to expand the scope of your HF experience, Len. Drop kick that "commercial operator" mode and re- focus on AMATEUR applications for a while! You'll enjoy it! I will politiely ask you to rephrase that paragraph. some thing Never do change it seems I cannot "drop kick" my previous life experience. In granting me an Amateur Extra license, the FCC has not required that I give up anything (as in discarding or "drop kicking") insofar as radio...nor of experience in radio nor of formal training in radio. Further, the FCC gives all licensees a great deal of freedom of choice in their class's frequency spectrum and modes of communications. There is no compelling mandate that any licensee must 'operate' in according to what certain groups of amateurs say one must. "Radio" and all of electronics works by the same laws of physics, regardless of the federal regulations on use made by governments. Nor should rop kickyou experence after all if you could achive that state (which I doubt) would you even have an interest in the ARS? I doubt it In your case your professional eperence is what brought you here In Mine it was lsitening to audio from the YomKippur year and I think before that the 6 Day war. Our life experences are what makesus who we are as people and as Hams "drop kicking" Our experences is form a sucide in a very real sense But of course you are right Maxwell equation et alldo not change suddenlyin the Ham bands I read alternitive history and sometimes in my nightmares wonder what what following the Conventional wisdom back when we ham were banshihed to USELES HF would have produced today I hope and Belive that the ARS has a future |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
2nd generation DRM receiver due out in December | Shortwave | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Antenna | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew | |||
PROJECT: next generation SWR/wattmeter | Homebrew |