Red Wave Radio

by I » Sat, 19 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Looks like the last thing the ARRL Board of Fools wants
is to listen and carry out the will of the membership. The
Board conducted surveys of the membership and then does
the complete opposite. It makes me so sick I could just
vomit. HEY ARRL, you want to save money? You can quit
having elections since you won't truthfuly represent
your membership anyway. ARRL will destroy a good thing
if it means more money in their pockets.

Quote:>Thanks for your input about the ARRL's licensing
>restructuring and testing proposal adopted by the
>ARRL Board of Directors a couple of weeks ago in
>Connecticut. Let me see if I can shed some light
>on some of the reasons for the proposed changes.

(Translation: We dont give a damn about your input, only ours.
Sorry you wasted time filling out our survey.)

Quote:>I am certain that some hams will find change itself
>to be very disconcerting. It is our nature to like
>things the way they are and the way they were. We're
>generally comfortable with that and not comfortable
>with change. In many instances, we would like to return
>to "the good old days" of ham radio. However, there
>are some very real reasons why amateur radio has to make
>some changes if it is to be around in the 21st century.

(Translation: We need to make getting licenses easy.)

Quote:>As amateur radio operators, we're slipping farther
>and farther behind on the technology power curve, and
>people take note of that. Take a look at the primary
>modes of communication we use: SSB, FM, CW, etc. Each
>of those modes of operation have been around 50, 60
>or 70 years or more.

(Translation: We couldn't think of any new modern modes that
would be popular, so we couldn't submit any ideas
with our proposal. Hope No one noticed.)

Quote:>I was traveling by airplane not long ago and the
>person sitting next to me was a retired electrical
>engineer.

(Translation: Your dues bought my plane ticket. League
money working hard for you.)

Quote:>As we chatted I told him about my involvement with
>amateur radio. He had a ham license about 45 years
>ago. He was amazed hams still use SSB, let alone CW.
>He wondered why the hams didn't use some of the more
>"modern" modes of communications.

(Translation: Not surprising, they won't use modern modes eihther.
We know most Techs haven't and won't try
satellite or even packet!)

Quote:>This is a typical reaction. We have to change people's
>perception of ham radio being a pursuit involving 70 year
>old communication techniques. One of the ways to help
>change that perception is to modernize our approach to
>CW.

(Translation: We can heap Bullshit on the issue and say CW
***d the institution of modern modes, and
CW is blocking technology.)

Quote:>We're not eliminating it, we're simply trying to put it
>in its proper perspective as we move into a new century.

(Translation: Are we bold enough to propose the total
elimination Of CW? No, but our proposed new
easy licenses will still please thousands
Techs, CBer's and other non-hams. We'll gain
their favor, and memberships.)

Quote:>CW will be around for a very long time as one of the
>modes of communication for amateurs. However, as
>an examination element, it carries much more weight than it
>should at the present time.

(Translation: We're losing membership dollars because many
potential members reject learning CW and won't
join us unless they can have HF for free. We
hear their cry.)

Quote:>I believe the League proposal will put CW into a more
>proper perspective in the examination context as we try
>to bring amateur radio into the current technological
>environment.

(Translation: Hope we can fool our grass roots support, old timers,
and pro-code League members with this Anti-CW Bullshit
membership drive technology rhetoric.)

Quote:>I don't think there are many people who see CW as the
>future of amateur radio. If they do, in my opinion they
>are looking backwards, not to the future of ham radio.

(Translation: Pro-coders are backwards and their arguments
interfere with our membership drive.)

Quote:>And, as I mentioned, we're not eliminating CW. There
>will be plenty of people operating CW just as they have
>for years.

(Translation: We want to eliminate CW, but our life members
would die of shock. We'll call for the total
elimination of CW in our next proposal.

Quote:>Most non-hams think of ham radio as a hobby. And as a
>matter of fact, most hams think of amateur radio as a hobby.
>Sure, the League tries to stress the emergency communications
>and the public service aspects of amateur radio to those that
>are unaware of that role and people outside of ham radio do
>have some understanding of that role of amateur radio. It is
>certainly one of the first things I tell people about amateur
>radio if they have no acquaintance with the amateur service.
>However, the bottom line is we're viewed as a hobby.

(Translation: Maybe we should mix in some truth with the Bullshit.)

Quote:>The point is, we have some very valuable spectrum that is
>available to us for hobby purposes, and yes, even for our
>public service activities. It has become more and more
>difficult in recent years to justify retaining our spectrum
>from commercial interests who make some very good arguments
>as to why they should be allowed to use our spectrum for
>endeavors that will generate jobs, used advanced telecommunications
>techniques and put the spectrum to use for commercial purposes,
>not just for hobby purposes.

(Translation: Hope the commerical companies seeking spectrum
will believe us when we say ham radio will get
more technological and that we're not just
spreading more bullshit.)

Quote:>Even considering the perception that what we do is a "hobby,"
>we can counter some of that perception that we're "a dying breed"
>clinging to old technologies when we can show that amateur radio
>is a vital, growing activity. One only has to look at the statistics
>in the last few years to find that to be untrue. In recent years
>the average age of a active ham has crept up to nearly 60 years old.
>The growth rate of new hams coming into the service is at an
>all-time low of less than 2%. That doesn't even keep up with the
>"loss rate" of people who die or simply leave amateur radio for
>various reasons. The argument that we need to retain spectrum for
>the growth of amateur radio in the face of dwindling numbers is an
>unconvincing one to anyone, like the FCC and commercial interests,
>who takes a moment to look at the numbers.

(Translation: If we don't get new hams we're going to have to
swallow a decrease in our salaries. We can all
have raises when all those CBer's come on board
with the new easier licenses!)

Quote:>Taking these factors into consideration, the perception of ham
>radio is one of an aging group of hobbyists who use "less than
>state-of-the-art" communication techniques. We may not like that
>perception but that is what it is in many circles of the
>communications industry.

(Translation: Guess improvements in transmitter & receiver design
and DSP don't count as state-of-the-art if the
transceiver is sending CW!)

Quote:>The changes proposed by the League are not the total solution to
>the problem. We still have to make an effort to move into more
>advanced communication techniques in the near future. We need to
>take advantage of some of the more cutting edge modes of digital
>communication to allow for more efficient use of the spectrum.
>The Board of Directors is aware that merely restructuring license
>classes and modernizing the CW testing requirements is not the
>whole answer.

(Translation: If we must destroy ham radio to save it, then we'll
do it! Our jobs are at stake!)

Quote:>The League is going to have to take the lead in promoting
>technological advances within amateur radio even if it is just
>stressing the idea that amateurs put to use in amateur radio some
>of the techniques used by the commercial services.

(Translation: We can't promote technological advances now because
that darned CW mode keeps getting in the way.)

Quote:>And it's not just the League that needs a different mindset to get
>us into the next century with a vital amateur radio. For example,
>we might persuade repeater coordinators to give priority to
>sanctioning repeaters that are going to be using advanced digital
>modes rather than the 50 year old narrow band FM mode.

(Translation: Hmmm, We still can't figure out how to get hams to
accept the current new modes. We'll just say we're
working on it.)

Quote:>We might even persuade radio manufacturers to market HF radios that
>use other modes than CW and SSB as the primary modes of communication
>below 30 MHz. There are digital techniques that can be applied to
>the amateur service that would make more efficient use of the
>spectrum and minimize the interference potential between stations.

(Translation: We know a CW signal takes less bandwidth than other
modes, but we'll throw out this bullshit that there
might be other modes that are more spectrum efficient
than CW and see if anyone buys it!)

Quote:>I suppose the bottom line is we in amateur radio have to start
>thinking about the future and where we want amateur radio to be
>in the future.

(Translation: If our ham bands sound like CB channel 19, who cares?
At least we'll have more members.)

Quote:>Changes within ham radio have been suggested for quite a

...

read more »

by **Christopher Co** » Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Dear no name whimp,

1) Get a name.

2) Get a e-mail address.

3) Open a copy of EDN, learn what 16 point QAM is.

4) Stop crossposting to the satellite news group you CW appliance op.

Warmest Regards ( a phonetic meaning 73, only LID's 'say' 73 )

Christopher Cox
KC8FRJ Amateur Amateur

by **Jay** » Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:00:00

All right then, I get to use all them extra bands that I have never used in
my equipment, like 160, 80, 40, 17, 20, 10, meter bands. All I half to do
is send in form 610, and start yelling out Break Break, I mean CQ, CQ,
DX, DX.

Thats great! Just one thing, whats CW? Is this a typo for CB?

road ah ways from the fillin station.

> Looks like the last thing the ARRL Board of Fools wants
> is to listen and carry out the will of the membership. The
> Board conducted surveys of the membership and then does
> the complete opposite. It makes me so sick I could just
> vomit. HEY ARRL, you want to save money? You can quit
> having elections since you won't truthfuly represent
> your membership anyway. ARRL will destroy a good thing
> if it means more money in their pockets.

> >Thanks for your input about the ARRL's licensing
> >restructuring and testing proposal adopted by the
> >ARRL Board of Directors a couple of weeks ago in
> >Connecticut. Let me see if I can shed some light
> >on some of the reasons for the proposed changes.

> (Translation: We dont give a damn about your input, only ours.
> Sorry you wasted time filling out our survey.)

> >I am certain that some hams will find change itself
> >to be very disconcerting. It is our nature to like
> >things the way they are and the way they were. We're
> >generally comfortable with that and not comfortable
> >with change. In many instances, we would like to return
> >to "the good old days" of ham radio. However, there
> >are some very real reasons why amateur radio has to make
> >some changes if it is to be around in the 21st century.

> (Translation: We need to make getting licenses easy.)

> >As amateur radio operators, we're slipping farther
> >and farther behind on the technology power curve, and
> >people take note of that. Take a look at the primary
> >modes of communication we use: SSB, FM, CW, etc. Each
> >of those modes of operation have been around 50, 60
> >or 70 years or more.

> (Translation: We couldn't think of any new modern modes that
> would be popular, so we couldn't submit any ideas
> with our proposal. Hope No one noticed.)

> >I was traveling by airplane not long ago and the
> >person sitting next to me was a retired electrical
> >engineer.

> (Translation: Your dues bought my plane ticket. League
> money working hard for you.)

> >As we chatted I told him about my involvement with
> >amateur radio. He had a ham license about 45 years
> >ago. He was amazed hams still use SSB, let alone CW.
> >He wondered why the hams didn't use some of the more
> >"modern" modes of communications.

> (Translation: Not surprising, they won't use modern modes eihther.
> We know most Techs haven't and won't try
> satellite or even packet!)

> >This is a typical reaction. We have to change people's
> >perception of ham radio being a pursuit involving 70 year
> >old communication techniques. One of the ways to help
> >change that perception is to modernize our approach to
> >CW.

> (Translation: We can heap Bullshit on the issue and say CW
> ***d the institution of modern modes, and
> CW is blocking technology.)

> >We're not eliminating it, we're simply trying to put it
> >in its proper perspective as we move into a new century.

> (Translation: Are we bold enough to propose the total
> elimination Of CW? No, but our proposed new
> easy licenses will still please thousands
> Techs, CBer's and other non-hams. We'll gain
> their favor, and memberships.)

> >CW will be around for a very long time as one of the
> >modes of communication for amateurs. However, as
> >an examination element, it carries much more weight than it
> >should at the present time.

> (Translation: We're losing membership dollars because many
> potential members reject learning CW and won't
> join us unless they can have HF for free. We
> hear their cry.)

> >I believe the League proposal will put CW into a more
> >proper perspective in the examination context as we try
> >to bring amateur radio into the current technological
> >environment.

> (Translation: Hope we can fool our grass roots support, old timers,
> and pro-code League members with this Anti-CW Bullshit
> membership drive technology rhetoric.)

> >I don't think there are many people who see CW as the
> >future of amateur radio. If they do, in my opinion they
> >are looking backwards, not to the future of ham radio.

> (Translation: Pro-coders are backwards and their arguments
> interfere with our membership drive.)

> >And, as I mentioned, we're not eliminating CW. There
> >will be plenty of people operating CW just as they have
> >for years.

> (Translation: We want to eliminate CW, but our life members
> would die of shock. We'll call for the total
> elimination of CW in our next proposal.

> >Most non-hams think of ham radio as a hobby. And as a
> >matter of fact, most hams think of amateur radio as a hobby.
> >Sure, the League tries to stress the emergency communications
> >and the public service aspects of amateur radio to those that
> >are unaware of that role and people outside of ham radio do
> >have some understanding of that role of amateur radio. It is
> >certainly one of the first things I tell people about amateur
> >radio if they have no acquaintance with the amateur service.
> >However, the bottom line is we're viewed as a hobby.

> (Translation: Maybe we should mix in some truth with the Bullshit.)

> >The point is, we have some very valuable spectrum that is
> >available to us for hobby purposes, and yes, even for our
> >public service activities. It has become more and more
> >difficult in recent years to justify retaining our spectrum
> >from commercial interests who make some very good arguments
> >as to why they should be allowed to use our spectrum for
> >endeavors that will generate jobs, used advanced telecommunications
> >techniques and put the spectrum to use for commercial purposes,
> >not just for hobby purposes.

> (Translation: Hope the commerical companies seeking spectrum
> will believe us when we say ham radio will get
> more technological and that we're not just
> spreading more bullshit.)

> >Even considering the perception that what we do is a "hobby,"
> >we can counter some of that perception that we're "a dying breed"
> >clinging to old technologies when we can show that amateur radio
> >is a vital, growing activity. One only has to look at the statistics
> >in the last few years to find that to be untrue. In recent years
> >the average age of a active ham has crept up to nearly 60 years old.
> >The growth rate of new hams coming into the service is at an
> >all-time low of less than 2%. That doesn't even keep up with the
> >"loss rate" of people who die or simply leave amateur radio for
> >various reasons. The argument that we need to retain spectrum for
> >the growth of amateur radio in the face of dwindling numbers is an
> >unconvincing one to anyone, like the FCC and commercial interests,
> >who takes a moment to look at the numbers.

> (Translation: If we don't get new hams we're going to have to
> swallow a decrease in our salaries. We can all
> have raises when all those CBer's come on board
> with the new easier licenses!)

> >Taking these factors into consideration, the perception of ham
> >radio is one of an aging group of hobbyists who use "less than
> >state-of-the-art" communication techniques. We may not like that
> >perception but that is what it is in many circles of the
> >communications industry.

> (Translation: Guess improvements in transmitter & receiver design
> and DSP don't count as state-of-the-art if the
> transceiver is sending CW!)

> >The changes proposed by the League are not the total solution to
> >the problem. We still have to make an effort to move into more
> >advanced communication techniques in the near future. We need to
> >take advantage of some of the more cutting edge modes of digital
> >communication to allow for more efficient use of the spectrum.
> >The Board of Directors is aware that merely restructuring license
> >classes and modernizing the CW testing requirements is not the
> >whole answer.

> (Translation: If we must destroy ham radio to save it, then we'll
> do it! Our jobs are at stake!)

> >The League is going to have to take the lead in promoting
> >technological advances within amateur radio even if it is just
> >stressing the idea that amateurs put to use in amateur radio some
> >of the techniques used by the commercial services.

> (Translation: We can't promote technological advances now because
> that darned CW mode keeps getting in the way.)

> >And it's not just the League that needs a different mindset to get
> >us into the next century with a vital amateur radio. For example,
> >we might persuade repeater coordinators to give priority to
> >sanctioning repeaters that are going to be using advanced digital
> >modes rather than the 50 year old narrow band FM mode.

> (Translation: Hmmm, We still can't figure out how to get hams to
> accept the current new modes. We'll just say we're
> working on it.)

> >We might even persuade radio manufacturers to market HF radios that
> >use other modes than CW and SSB as the primary modes of communication
> >below 30 MHz. There are digital techniques that can be applied to
> >the amateur service that would make more efficient use

...

read more »

by **Toll Fre** » Sun, 20 Sep 1998 04:00:00

I have not stayed current on the topic, but...

If what you are describing is correct, then I would definately try (once
again) to get my 5 WPM passed (I hate cw!!!)

Then, my Kenwood radio and Heathkit amplifier could see something besides 11
meters!!!!

Toll Free

--
Remember.... Technicians make it happen!

Toll Free
http://www.bigradios.com/tollfree
One of the Big Johnson Boys in the Dome!
Every woman likes a man with a great big Johnson!!!

>From what I understand of the changes that are announced, they will not
even
>take place until after Dec 31, 1998, and that the novice and tech plus will
be
>discontinued. That tech will be the entry for HAM radio on FM VHF/UHF and
that
>General class will the entry point for HF (1-30 mhz) with approx 5WPM
code...
> The proposed changes will allow for more phone communication area, and
allow
>for expansion of the area that they operate. The only class that will not
see
>alot of changes will be the Advanced Extra Class(the highest class) all
others
>will expand....These changes will bring the US code standards inline with
the
>rest of the world at 12WPM for the highest code required, so all those
General
>code at 13 wpm will not have to test for code again even at higher license
>levels.....
> I think the whole thing is over the idea that CB'ers will be allowed to
just
>apply for a license and pay the money and get one....Well, the people that
get
>the license will still have to pass a test on electronics and if they want
>General class will still have to pass 5WPM code test, the applicant will be
>tested on proper procedure(no more "break, breaker good buddy") and such,
and
>they will have to know electronics on the level of the current General
class
>level.....The testing will be on the level of the frequencies that the
>different classes will operate on....this will encourage people to learn
about
>the frequencies they work, and how the radios work, and the new types of
>communication, in addition it will OPEN UP the area that CW can be
>used......hopefully encouraging people that just talk to maybe investigate
the
>code arena.....
> I think this good for Ham radio..... John

by **CB711MA** » Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:00:00

From what I understand of the changes that are announced, they will not even
take place until after Dec 31, 1998, and that the novice and tech plus will be
discontinued. That tech will be the entry for HAM radio on FM VHF/UHF and that
General class will the entry point for HF (1-30 mhz) with approx 5WPM code...
The proposed changes will allow for more phone communication area, and allow
for expansion of the area that they operate. The only class that will not see
alot of changes will be the Advanced Extra Class(the highest class) all others
will expand....These changes will bring the US code standards inline with the
rest of the world at 12WPM for the highest code required, so all those General
code at 13 wpm will not have to test for code again even at higher license
levels.....
I think the whole thing is over the idea that CB'ers will be allowed to just
apply for a license and pay the money and get one....Well, the people that get
the license will still have to pass a test on electronics and if they want
General class will still have to pass 5WPM code test, the applicant will be
tested on proper procedure(no more "break, breaker good buddy") and such, and
they will have to know electronics on the level of the current General class
level.....The testing will be on the level of the frequencies that the
different classes will operate on....this will encourage people to learn about
the frequencies they work, and how the radios work, and the new types of
communication, in addition it will OPEN UP the area that CW can be
used......hopefully encouraging people that just talk to maybe investigate the
code arena.....
I think this good for Ham radio..... John

by **CBRam** » Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:00:00

>I have not stayed current on the topic, but...

>If what you are describing is correct, then I would definately try (once
>again) to get my 5 WPM passed (I hate cw!!!)

>Then, my Kenwood radio and Heathkit amplifier could see something besides 11
>meters!!!!

You wouldn't like it. The Kenwood is much more useful on 11 meters.

"Where's that big 'ol CB RAMBO??"
"I wanna hear him TALK TOUGH!!"

by **Toll Fre** » Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:00:00

O.K., I guess your right....

Gee... And you are always going off on Erik about his posts and the way he
goes off....

Seems like you two are peas in a pod!

--
Remember.... Technicians make it happen!

Toll Free
http://www.bigradios.com/tollfree
One of the Big Johnson Boys in the Dome!
Every woman likes a man with a great big Johnson!!!

>>I have not stayed current on the topic, but...

>>If what you are describing is correct, then I would definately try (once
>>again) to get my 5 WPM passed (I hate cw!!!)

>>Then, my Kenwood radio and Heathkit amplifier could see something besides
11
>>meters!!!!

>You wouldn't like it. The Kenwood is much more useful on 11 meters.

>"Where's that big 'ol CB RAMBO??"
> "I wanna hear him TALK TOUGH!!"

by **tracy glen** » Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:00:00

> From what I understand of the changes that are announced, they will not even
> take place until after Dec 31, 1998, and that the novice and tech plus will be
> discontinued. That tech will be the entry for HAM radio on FM VHF/UHF and that
> General class will the entry point for HF (1-30 mhz) with approx 5WPM code...
> The proposed changes will allow for more phone communication area, and allow
> for expansion of the area that they operate. The only class that will not see
> alot of changes will be the Advanced Extra Class(the highest class) all others
> will expand....These changes will bring the US code standards inline with the
> rest of the world at 12WPM for the highest code required, so all those General
> code at 13 wpm will not have to test for code again even at higher license
> levels.....
> I think the whole thing is over the idea that CB'ers will be allowed to just
> apply for a license and pay the money and get one....Well, the people that get
> the license will still have to pass a test on electronics and if they want
> General class will still have to pass 5WPM code test, the applicant will be
> tested on proper procedure(no more "break, breaker good buddy") and such, and
> they will have to know electronics on the level of the current General class
> level.....The testing will be on the level of the frequencies that the
> different classes will operate on....this will encourage people to learn about
> the frequencies they work, and how the radios work, and the new types of
> communication, in addition it will OPEN UP the area that CW can be
> used......hopefully encouraging people that just talk to maybe investigate the
> code arena.....
> I think this good for Ham radio..... John

Any idiot can pass the current electronic and CW test so why change
it? I went from no license,no theory,no CW,no college education to Extra
class in 7 months and thought the whole thing was too easy.I used to
respect hams because I thought it was a bit of a challenge to get a
ticket.I believe in keeping the CW requirement as a filter if nothing
else.The filter would still let everyone thru,it would just clean them
up a bit on the way. I am afraid of the end of code testing partly
because of what it will do to our
bands in terms of opening the floodgates to hordes of the "Mildly
Interested" who
have no real stake in the past, present nor future of the ARS and who
wander in and
out of "interests", hobbies and activities searching for something the
never find
anywhere. Many of these people are very adept at causing the ruination
of whatever
endeavor they happen to soil with their presence.

Rod Stafford,the ARRL board and amatuers of thier sort will ruin the
hobby. AB7RS

by **3Cross** » Mon, 21 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Quote:>Even considering the perception that what we
>do is a "hobby," we can counter some of that
>perception that we're "a dying breed" clinging to
>old technologies when we can show that
>amateur radio is a vital, growing activity. One
>only has to look at the statistics in the last few
>years to find that to be untrue. In recent years
>the average age of a active ham has crept up to
>nearly 60 years old. The growth rate of new
>hams coming into the service is at an all-time
>low of less than 2%. That doesn't even keep up
>with the "loss rate" of people who die or simply
>leave amateur radio for various reasons.

Stating the average age of the licensed amateur is nearly 60 is being
kind. The CW requirement should have been discontinued years ago and
emphasis placed on proper radio operation and etiquette.

...disgusted licensed amateur since `81

.---.
'-. | | .-'
___| |___
-= [ ] =-
`---. .---
__||__ | | __||__
'-..-' | | '-..-'
|| | | ||
||_.-| |-,_||
.-"` `"`` `"-.
0|\\\\|[=== http://crosses.cjb.net ====-
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes. ?--Romans 1:18, New International
Version

by **you asked for i** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

Thanks for the translations, by thoughts exactly. I can't wait to hear the
ARRL's new "Hams" call CQ DX on the local 2 meter repeaters :-(

73 de Soon to be non-ARRL member.

>Looks like the last thing the ARRL Board of Fools wants
>is to listen and carry out the will of the membership. The
>Board conducted surveys of the membership and then does
>the complete opposite. It makes me so sick I could just
>vomit. HEY ARRL, you want to save money? You can quit
>having elections since you won't truthfuly represent
>your membership anyway. ARRL will destroy a good thing
>if it means more money in their pockets.

>>Thanks for your input about the ARRL's licensing
>>restructuring and testing proposal adopted by the
>>ARRL Board of Directors a couple of weeks ago in
>>Connecticut. Let me see if I can shed some light
>>on some of the reasons for the proposed changes.

>(Translation: We dont give a damn about your input, only ours.
> Sorry you wasted time filling out our survey.)

>>I am certain that some hams will find change itself
>>to be very disconcerting. It is our nature to like
>>things the way they are and the way they were. We're
>>generally comfortable with that and not comfortable
>>with change. In many instances, we would like to return
>>to "the good old days" of ham radio. However, there
>>are some very real reasons why amateur radio has to make
>>some changes if it is to be around in the 21st century.

>(Translation: We need to make getting licenses easy.)

>>As amateur radio operators, we're slipping farther
>>and farther behind on the technology power curve, and
>>people take note of that. Take a look at the primary
>>modes of communication we use: SSB, FM, CW, etc. Each
>>of those modes of operation have been around 50, 60
>>or 70 years or more.

>(Translation: We couldn't think of any new modern modes that
> would be popular, so we couldn't submit any ideas
> with our proposal. Hope No one noticed.)

>>I was traveling by airplane not long ago and the
>>person sitting next to me was a retired electrical
>>engineer.

>(Translation: Your dues bought my plane ticket. League
> money working hard for you.)

>>As we chatted I told him about my involvement with
>>amateur radio. He had a ham license about 45 years
>>ago. He was amazed hams still use SSB, let alone CW.
>>He wondered why the hams didn't use some of the more
>>"modern" modes of communications.

>(Translation: Not surprising, they won't use modern modes eihther.
> We know most Techs haven't and won't try
> satellite or even packet!)

>>This is a typical reaction. We have to change people's
>>perception of ham radio being a pursuit involving 70 year
>>old communication techniques. One of the ways to help
>>change that perception is to modernize our approach to
>>CW.

>(Translation: We can heap Bullshit on the issue and say CW
> ***d the institution of modern modes, and
> CW is blocking technology.)

>>We're not eliminating it, we're simply trying to put it
>>in its proper perspective as we move into a new century.

>(Translation: Are we bold enough to propose the total
> elimination Of CW? No, but our proposed new
> easy licenses will still please thousands
> Techs, CBer's and other non-hams. We'll gain
> their favor, and memberships.)

>>CW will be around for a very long time as one of the
>>modes of communication for amateurs. However, as
>>an examination element, it carries much more weight than it
>>should at the present time.

>(Translation: We're losing membership dollars because many
> potential members reject learning CW and won't
> join us unless they can have HF for free. We
> hear their cry.)

>>I believe the League proposal will put CW into a more
>>proper perspective in the examination context as we try
>>to bring amateur radio into the current technological
>>environment.

>(Translation: Hope we can fool our grass roots support, old timers,
> and pro-code League members with this Anti-CW Bullshit
> membership drive technology rhetoric.)

>>I don't think there are many people who see CW as the
>>future of amateur radio. If they do, in my opinion they
>>are looking backwards, not to the future of ham radio.

>(Translation: Pro-coders are backwards and their arguments
> interfere with our membership drive.)

>>And, as I mentioned, we're not eliminating CW. There
>>will be plenty of people operating CW just as they have
>>for years.

>(Translation: We want to eliminate CW, but our life members
> would die of shock. We'll call for the total
> elimination of CW in our next proposal.

>>Most non-hams think of ham radio as a hobby. And as a
>>matter of fact, most hams think of amateur radio as a hobby.
>>Sure, the League tries to stress the emergency communications
>>and the public service aspects of amateur radio to those that
>>are unaware of that role and people outside of ham radio do
>>have some understanding of that role of amateur radio. It is
>>certainly one of the first things I tell people about amateur
>>radio if they have no acquaintance with the amateur service.
>>However, the bottom line is we're viewed as a hobby.

>(Translation: Maybe we should mix in some truth with the Bullshit.)

>>The point is, we have some very valuable spectrum that is
>>available to us for hobby purposes, and yes, even for our
>>public service activities. It has become more and more
>>difficult in recent years to justify retaining our spectrum
>>from commercial interests who make some very good arguments
>>as to why they should be allowed to use our spectrum for
>>endeavors that will generate jobs, used advanced telecommunications
>>techniques and put the spectrum to use for commercial purposes,
>>not just for hobby purposes.

>(Translation: Hope the commerical companies seeking spectrum
> will believe us when we say ham radio will get
> more technological and that we're not just
> spreading more bullshit.)

>>Even considering the perception that what we do is a "hobby,"
>>we can counter some of that perception that we're "a dying breed"
>>clinging to old technologies when we can show that amateur radio
>>is a vital, growing activity. One only has to look at the statistics
>>in the last few years to find that to be untrue. In recent years
>>the average age of a active ham has crept up to nearly 60 years old.
>>The growth rate of new hams coming into the service is at an
>>all-time low of less than 2%. That doesn't even keep up with the
>>"loss rate" of people who die or simply leave amateur radio for
>>various reasons. The argument that we need to retain spectrum for
>>the growth of amateur radio in the face of dwindling numbers is an
>>unconvincing one to anyone, like the FCC and commercial interests,
>>who takes a moment to look at the numbers.

>(Translation: If we don't get new hams we're going to have to
> swallow a decrease in our salaries. We can all
> have raises when all those CBer's come on board
> with the new easier licenses!)

>>Taking these factors into consideration, the perception of ham
>>radio is one of an aging group of hobbyists who use "less than
>>state-of-the-art" communication techniques. We may not like that
>>perception but that is what it is in many circles of the
>>communications industry.

>(Translation: Guess improvements in transmitter & receiver design
> and DSP don't count as state-of-the-art if the
> transceiver is sending CW!)

>>The changes proposed by the League are not the total solution to
>>the problem. We still have to make an effort to move into more
>>advanced communication techniques in the near future. We need to
>>take advantage of some of the more cutting edge modes of digital
>>communication to allow for more efficient use of the spectrum.
>>The Board of Directors is aware that merely restructuring license
>>classes and modernizing the CW testing requirements is not the
>>whole answer.

>(Translation: If we must destroy ham radio to save it, then we'll
> do it! Our jobs are at stake!)

>>The League is going to have to take the lead in promoting
>>technological advances within amateur radio even if it is just
>>stressing the idea that amateurs put to use in amateur radio some
>>of the techniques used by the commercial services.

>(Translation: We can't promote technological advances now because
> that darned CW mode keeps getting in the way.)

>>And it's not just the League that needs a different mindset to get
>>us into the next century with a vital amateur radio. For example,
>>we might persuade repeater coordinators to give priority to
>>sanctioning repeaters that are going to be using advanced digital
>>modes rather than the 50 year old narrow band FM mode.

>(Translation: Hmmm, We still can't figure out how to get hams to
> accept the current new modes. We'll just say we're
> working on it.)

>>We might even persuade radio manufacturers to market HF radios that
>>use other modes than CW and SSB as the primary modes of communication
>>below 30 MHz. There are digital techniques that can be applied to
>>the amateur service that would make more efficient use of the
>>spectrum and minimize the interference potential between stations.

>(Translation: We know a CW signal takes less bandwidth than other
> modes, but we'll throw out this

...

read more »

by **Save** » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00

QST - Devoted Entirely to Citizens Band