I got another email from Katie Breen [Archive]

WA2ZDY

12-21-2006, 08:08 PM

And this is the reply I sent her:

Quote[/b] ]

Katie,

Hello and Season's Greetings to you and yours. I've received several emails over your signature inviting me to return to the ARRL fold. I cannot do so and I'm taking this opportunity to answer your call to tell you the reason.

To put it bluntly, I do not feel ARRL represents my best interests as a ham.

I've been a ham 32 years so I was strongly informed of the incentive licensing debacle of the 1960's. I joined ARRL anyway with reasonable satisfaction. Then in 1987 came Novice enhancement. Not entirely a bad thing but ineffective as a tool to attract and retain hams.

The no-code proposal, approved in 1991 was shoved down our throats as a good way to attract the technically inclined and computer geeks who were being kept away by the code proficiency requirements. I even favoured this approach as ARRL told us such a license would bring a much more comprehensive written exam, commensurate with the desire to attract those tech types.

Ummmm, go look at today's no code ham and read the forums where they ask how to connect their radios to a car battery. Technical? Hardly. Basically many of us felt bamboozled.

Now we have ARRL championing the digital modes. Sure they're useful, even fun. I ran TTY, AMTOR and original PACTOR for many years. I also kept up with local goings-on via 2m packet. But now ARRL sees digital as the way to bring in the geeks who weren't attracted by the NCT in 1991. In this vein, ARRL has proposed encryption, wisely removed from the table - for now, spread spectrum on bands as low as 6m, and continues to push Winlink on HF.

I'm not convinced any of ths is more than an attempt to attract folks to the ham bands who would be better suited elsewhere. HF Winlink is widely known to be an email system widely used by yachters who became hams for no other reason. They're not even "hams" in the true sense of the word; they're licensees. So while they have the legal right to use our spectrum, their traffic clearly belongs on commercial systems, such as "Sailmail." These Winlink users are thus largely freeloaders; they use our spectrum only for the financial benefit of doing so. They add naught to the bottom line as benefits ham radio.''

Once upon a time Part 97 called for third party traffic not to be used to circumvent other available commercial carriers. I haven't been able to find that passage in the current Part 97 so perhaps it's been removed. But what it meant was that not all that long ago the yachters' email would have been prohibited on the amateur bands. If it is in fact no longer a violation, it surely is not in the amateur spirit. And this is what ARRL wants the future of ham radio to be.

No Katie, this is not the ham radio I envisioned keeping me busy in my dotage. QST is no longer a technical journal; it caters to the modern appliance operator. That would be ok except that the whole appeal of ham radio was that it was a technical hobby. That it is no longer, while not entirely the fault of ARRL, makes it no longer the hobby I wanted to be a part of. The hobby that attracted me as a lad of 13 is basically no more.

I heard tell of a story that today's amateur isn't the lazy, unmotivated person I see him (for the most part) as. I disagree. Technology is everywhere but it doesn't always result in the users being reduced to purely appliance operator status.

The example I use is photography. (I hold a degree in photography, having been an amateur photographer and having processed my own film and prints at age 11, predating my entry into ham radio.) Today's modern digital cameras will literally do EVERYTHING for the photographer if he or she so desires. The photographer can allow him/herself to be reduced to selecting the subject and pushing the button.

I'm a member of an internet discussion forum where the vast majority of the users are women. Rumour has it women don't care for ham radio because women aren't tech types. True or not, it's not the case in this case. The women of this forum, many EXTREMELY talented choose time and again to learn how to make the most of their equipment. They want to understand exposure, depth of field, the technical aspects of lens selection, etc. They want to use manual control to take the decision making back from their cameras.

Quite a contrast between that and ham radio, isn't it? So it's not that folks across the board don't want to do anything technical anymore, it's something else. And I figure some of it has to do with the expectations of folks like ARRL and FCC being so low, the candidates are living up to exactly what is expected of them. And that unfortunately is very little anymore.

Thank you for your invitation to join ARRL but as it stands now, I'm having difficulty even deciding whether I want to bother remaining a ham. The investment I currently have in ham gear would go a long way toward buying nice photography gear and a new copy of Adobe Photoshop.

Please remove me from ARRL's mailing list.

73,

Chris Johnson, WA2ZDY/4

K0RGR

12-21-2006, 09:09 PM

Well, that was a polite letter.

Obviously, the hobby no longer thrills you.

I'm not sure what you expected, but I guess what it's become isn't your cup of tea.

I agree with you about WINLINK, and I hope we aren't overrun with them soon. I also am concerned that ARRL can't see the conflict here. I know that my ARRL Director has similar concerns. Maybe if other ARRL members discussed it with their Directors in the way you have here, there would be some change.

Nonetheless, it seems that your disatisfaction goes far beyond that.

Your depiction of hams as "lazy, unmotivated" is simply wrong. You mean that hams today aren't doing what you think they should be doing. Like you, hams today have many pursuits beyond amateur radio - much more so than did our parents. The pace of life is faster now, and the effort required to be a parent, an adult, is much greater than it was. Ham Radio is just part of a balanced life, not its' reason for being.

Do you build any of those cameras? Last time I looked you could still build your ham gear. ARRL does a fair job of making designs and information to do that available, but I guess you were expecting all of that to be included free with your membership instead of having to buy a Handbook.
It hasn't been like that since the 50's, but so what?

You're adopting the position that since ARRL doesn't agree with you on every aspect of the hobby, they don't represent your interests. I strongly disagree.

Ham Radio isn't everything I would wish it to be, and if I thought refusing to join the only organization that represents us would somehow fix the problem, I would do it. Instead, I do what I can to fix the problems. It's much more satisfying when you occasionally win.

KI4NGN

12-21-2006, 09:50 PM

Jeez Chris, if you're that down on ham radio, have such a low opinion of it, why then do you remain?

You offer the analogy that today's digital cameras, while allowing a person to do nothing more than point and shoot, still allow manual control over focus, aperture, and shutter speed. In other words one may still operate the camera.

Today's rigs are a lot easier to operate than they ever were, and that's the logical result of advancing technology. Hams have always contributed to the art of radio communications, which is another way of saying that they have contributed to the advancing technology. Now it has advanced to the point where the capabilities we used to dream about in ham radio are now common place. That's the irony...we've reached where we used to dream about being, so what do we dream about now?

I think that for some folks, perhaps yourself, this has killed ham radio as a hobby because it has always been about more than radio communications. You want to operate your gear, and technology has taken that away from you.

One result is that QST is not as technical as it once was. What do you expect with the current start of the art in electronics?

The January issue has a couple of technical/contruction articles on regen and crystal receivers! I suspect that they face the same frustration that you feel, just from the other side. Publish something for those who want ideas for things to do with their hands, but what?

How about a nice, simple, HF transceiver using discreet components, some DSP processing, DDS tuning, etc, etc? Not going to happen, you know it, and you know why. If they published some relatively simple (compared to today's rigs) construction article, it would sink like a rock. Why? Because it could never compete in performance with today's rigs, yet it would certainly be in their price ranges.

The K2 does come to mind as a great performance rig sold as a kit, but that project would be way beyond what any periodical could publish. The complexity of today's technology just doesn't make it practical. What would you have them publish? I'll bet they would welcome some suggestions!

I'm sorry that you're so down on ham radio. Maybe you'll feel better after the silly season is past.

Mike

WB2WIK

12-21-2006, 10:12 PM

I don't use nearly so many words in such cases.

A simple "f*** off; strong letter follows" e-mail usually does the trick.

I'm still a League member since there's no other game in town but must admit I've been disappointed deeply and often...

WB2WIK/6

N2RJ

12-21-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ Dec. 21 2006,16:50)]How about a nice, simple, HF transceiver using discreet components, some DSP processing, DDS tuning, etc, etc? Not going to happen, you know it, and you know why. If they published some relatively simple (compared to today's rigs) construction article, it would sink like a rock. Why? Because it could never compete in performance with today's rigs, yet it would certainly be in their price ranges.
In all fairness, QEX (an ARRL publication) does have some of the projects of the caliber you describe. There was a DDS VFO about 2 months ago with a digital readout, also a legal limit solid state amp, designed by an engineer from Tokyo Hy-Power.

No publication has recently published a full transceiver project the likes of which you describe, but they have published bits and pieces.

You can put those bits and pieces together and boom, you have a transceiver. The QEX article even tells you what you need.

Experimentation isn't just about putting together a whole transceiver from a kit or published plans. You can do that sure, but you can also improvise, modify, and take different building blocks and tie them in. You're a software developer, aren't you? You certainly don't design everything from scratch, do you? No. You have libraries designed by other people, which you use in your own projects. Same thing with electronic projects.

And finally, the point isn't competing with commercial rigs. It's about building something yourself and understanding how it works.

AC0H

12-22-2006, 12:13 AM

Quote[/b] ]Today's rigs are a lot easier to operate than they ever were, and that's the logical result of advancing technology. Hams have always contributed to the art of radio communications, which is another way of saying that they have contributed to the advancing technology. Now it has advanced to the point where the capabilities we used to dream about in ham radio are now common place. That's the irony...we've reached where we used to dream about being, so what do we dream about now?
Falderal,......Road Apples,......Hooey!
Go take a look at the help forums on this site and count the number of "Help, I can't program my radio" threads there are. Compare that to 20-30 years ago when everything VHF and up was crystal controlled. I can't count the number of HT's available today that don't even have a simple rotary squelch control. Forget how to get to the menu's and your bright, shiny, "technologically advanced" HT turns into a paperweight.

Quote[/b] ]How about a nice, simple, HF transceiver using discreet components, some DSP processing, DDS tuning, etc, etc? Not going to happen, you know it, and you know why. If they published some relatively simple (compared to today's rigs) construction article, it would sink like a rock. Why? Because it could never compete in performance with today's rigs, yet it would certainly be in their price ranges.
More Hooey!
My K2/100 is 95% discreet components and has performance to rival all but the most expensive commercially built rigs costing two to three times as much. It took me two weeks off and on after work to build it. No fancy equipment other than a DMM and a temperature controlled soldering iron.

K2 Performance charts (http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm)

Your just proving Chris's point. Ham Radio is no longer the technical hobby it once was. By the ARRL pushing quantity over quality it's becoming more and more an appliance operators hobby. QST doesn't publish technical articles anymore because a lot of their subscribers wouldn't know what they were reading.

N2RJ

12-22-2006, 12:16 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 21 2006,19:13)]QST doesn't publish technical articles anymore because a lot of their subscribers wouldn't know what they were reading.
Still waiting for the "pretty soon QST will come with a free pack of crayons" comment. lol

AC0H

12-22-2006, 12:19 AM

Quote[/b] ]Still waiting for the "pretty soon QST will come with a free pack of crayons" comment. lol
I was saving that one!

ab8ro

12-22-2006, 12:31 AM

LMAO, you actually sent that?

WA2ZDY

12-22-2006, 12:56 AM

Yes I sent it; glad you found it entertaining.

I didn't say hams are lazy and unmotivated in all cases. #But the comparison to photography was to make a point. #While Americans tend to no longer be a technically inclined people, technology itself has not rendered everyone uninterested. #

A bunch of women who have cameras that will gladly do it all for them have decided upon themselves to learn how to do it manually. # So we blame the dumbing down of ham radio on technology, i.e.: #ham radio is no longer a technical pursuit because today's radios have made being technically inclined unnecessary. #Yet in another hobby just as thoroughly immersed in technology, the hobbyists choose to know how to do it anyway. #

If a bunch of women (in the case of the forum I'm a member of) choose to learn the old fashioned way, why is it so outrageous to think hams should or at least could too?

As to the question about why I remain a ham, that's a good one. #The short answer is I will never turn my ticket in. # I will keep my options open. #But since we moved to Florida in July I have not been on the air. # And I haven't missed it. #So whether I remain or become again active is very much in doubt right now.

Ah well, thanks for the comments. #At least it shows you took the time to read it, whether you agree with it or not.

W3MIV

12-22-2006, 01:04 AM

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Dec. 21 2006,18:12)]I'm still a League member since there's no other game in town but must admit I've been disappointed deeply and often...
I feel your pain. I SHARE your pain. But your point that it is the only game in town is all too true. Like Tevye pacing in the garden, "on the other hand, there IS NO other hand!"

It is frustrating, but quitting is not the answer. The dues are bupkes and the magazine is still a good read.

KF0RT

12-22-2006, 01:12 AM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 21 2006,17:56)]A bunch of women who have cameras that will gladly do it all for them have decided upon themselves to learn how to do it manually. So we blame the dumbing down of ham radio on technology, i.e.: ham radio is no longer a technical pursuit because today's radios have made being technically inclined unnecessary. Yet in another hobby just as thoroughly immersed in technology, the hobbyists choose to know how to do it anyway.

If a bunch of women (in the case of the forum I'm a member of) choose to learn the old fashioned way, why is it so outrageous to think hams should or at least could too?
I'd guess you found a pretty rare photo forum there. The vast majority of non-pro photographers are worse than the appliance ops in amateur radio. Come to think of it, half the pros, too.

73, Rob

W5HTW

12-22-2006, 01:41 AM

Chris, you are fooling yourself. That letter to Katie will not be read. Someone will glance at the first paragraph and the rest of it will simply go into the trash can. If it doesn't say "I'm in ARES and have a Winlink System" it is junk mail.

I remain a member because QST arrives in my mail box monthly, and is NOT a bill. Well, yeah, it is sort of an annual bill. I guess I could stop subscribing and read the AARP newsletter. Or perhaps Hams R Us will publish something? At least in QST I see pictures of pretty radios. (Hmmm, maybe I should subscribe to Playboy? Did, for years. Never for the pictures, mind you. Only for the articles.)

So here's the way to get through: "I've got Winlink, am in ARES, and there's a check enclosed. Now that I have your attention .... Ha! Gotcha!"

Ed

K5FH

12-22-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 21 2006,18:04)]I feel your pain. I SHARE your pain. But your point that it is the only game in town is all too true. Like Tevye pacing in the garden, "on the other hand, there IS NO other hand!"

It is frustrating, but quitting is not the answer. The dues are bupkes and the magazine is still a good read.
QST gets most of its real revenue from advertising from YaeComWood and others. #The League has become little more than a publishing and merchandising house.

Notice that the number of pages of advertising in QST is at an all-time high right now, and this is at a time when membership is down.

I don't know as I would agree that the magazine is a good read, at least not anymore. #I have the January, 2007, issue in front of me and this is what I see for featured technical articles:

* A simple RF stage for regens.
* A high-sensitivity crystal set.
* A two-element "wonder bar" antenna for 17M.

Of the three featured articles the one about the 2-element 17M antenna is the only one that is even remotely practical and useful.

As for the product reviews, do you REALLY think they're going to risk offending a major advertiser?

QEX is where you have to go to get anything of real technical substance these days. #QST used to be thought of as a technical journal; nowadays, it's nothing more than a thick newsletter printed on slick paper.

W1SK

12-22-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 21 2006,18:41)](Hmmm, maybe I should subscribe to Playboy? Did, for years. Never for the pictures, mind you. Only for the articles.)
Yeah... I have used that one before http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73,
Joe

kf6rdn

12-22-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote[/b] (W1SK @ Dec. 21 2006,17:54)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Dec. 21 2006,18:41)](Hmmm, maybe I should subscribe to Playboy? Did, for years. Never for the pictures, mind you. Only for the articles.)
Yeah... I have used that one before http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

73,
Joe
They have articles? Where?

I re-joined ARRL, sorta because it's the only game, and also for the free antenna handbook.

I dont have time to read magazines.

W3MIV

12-22-2006, 02:16 AM

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Dec. 21 2006,21:54)]* A simple RF stage for regens.
* A high-sensitivity crystal set.
* A two-element "wonder bar" antenna for 17M.
You are reacting to the fact that you are no longer the primary target audience of the articles. Like it or not (and I can see you do not), the focus of much of the content has shifted -- downward, if you prefer the pejorative -- to a more basic or entry-level group. They still run articles aimed at a more technically astute constituency, but the weighting is steadily shifting to newbies.

This is also showing up in the series of articles by Joel Hallas on the workings of a transceiver and in the new "glossary" of terms. I think they are doing a great job in that regard, and I applaud the new content and look of the magazine.

Quote[/b] ]As for the product reviews, do you REALLY think they're going to risk offending a major advertiser?

Read the review of the MFJ power tap. While it is very possible that someone at the League might have tipped MFJ off to the findings, letting them devise some quick alterations to ameliorate the short-comings, it didn't seem that the reviewer pulled any punches.

KC0OFZ

12-22-2006, 02:18 AM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 21 2006,13:08)]And this is the reply I sent her:

Quote[/b] ]

Katie,

Hello and Season's Greetings to you and yours. #I've received several emails over your signature inviting me to return to the ARRL fold. # I cannot do so and I'm taking this opportunity to answer your call to tell you the reason.

To put it bluntly, I do not feel ARRL represents my best interests as a ham.

I've been a ham 32 years so I was strongly informed of the incentive licensing debacle of the 1960's. #I joined ARRL anyway with reasonable satisfaction. # Then in 1987 came Novice enhancement. #Not entirely a bad thing but ineffective as a tool to attract and retain hams.

The no-code proposal, approved in 1991 was shoved down our throats as a good way to attract the technically inclined and computer geeks who were being kept away by the code proficiency requirements. #I even favoured this approach as ARRL told us such a license would bring a much more comprehensive written exam, commensurate with the desire to attract those tech types. #

Ummmm, go look at today's no code ham and read the forums where they ask how to connect their radios to a car battery. #Technical? # Hardly. #Basically many of us felt bamboozled.

Now we have ARRL championing the digital modes. # Sure they're useful, even fun. #I ran TTY, AMTOR and original PACTOR for many years. # I also kept up with local goings-on via 2m packet. # But now ARRL sees digital as the way to bring in the geeks who weren't attracted by the NCT in 1991. # In this vein, ARRL has proposed encryption, wisely removed from the table - for now, spread spectrum on bands as low as 6m, and continues to push Winlink on HF.

I'm not convinced any of ths is more than an attempt to attract folks to the ham bands who would be better suited elsewhere. # HF Winlink is widely known to be an email system widely used by yachters who became hams for no other reason. # They're not even "hams" in the true sense of the word; they're licensees. #So while they have the legal right to use our spectrum, their traffic clearly belongs on commercial systems, such as "Sailmail." #These Winlink users are thus largely freeloaders; they use our spectrum only for the financial benefit of doing so. #They add naught to the bottom line as benefits ham radio.''

Once upon a time #Part 97 called for third party traffic not to be used to circumvent other available commercial carriers. # I haven't been able to find that passage in the current Part 97 so perhaps it's been removed. #But what it meant was that not all that long ago the yachters' email would have been prohibited on the amateur bands. #If it is in fact no longer a violation, it surely is not in the amateur spirit. # And this is what ARRL wants the future of ham radio to be.

No Katie, this is not the ham radio I envisioned keeping me busy in my dotage. #QST is no longer a technical journal; it caters to the modern appliance operator. # That would be ok except that the whole appeal of ham radio was that it was a technical hobby. # That it is no longer, while not entirely the fault of ARRL, makes it no longer the hobby I wanted to be a part of. # The hobby that attracted me as a lad of 13 is basically no more.

I heard tell of a story that today's amateur isn't the lazy, unmotivated person I see him (for the most part) as. # I disagree. # Technology is everywhere but it doesn't always result in the users being reduced to purely appliance operator status.

The example I use is photography. #(I hold a degree in photography, having been an amateur photographer and having processed my own film and prints at age 11, predating my entry into ham radio.) # Today's modern digital cameras will literally do EVERYTHING for the photographer if he or she so desires. #The photographer can allow him/herself to be reduced to selecting the subject and pushing the button.

I'm a member of an internet discussion forum where the vast majority of the users are women. #Rumour has it women don't care for ham radio because women aren't tech types. #True or not, it's not the case in this case. #The women of this forum, many EXTREMELY talented choose time and again to learn how to make the most of their equipment. #They want to understand exposure, depth of field, the technical aspects of lens selection, etc. #They want to use manual control to take the decision making back from their cameras.

Quite a contrast between that and ham radio, isn't it? #So it's not that folks across the board don't want to do anything technical anymore, it's something else. # And I figure some of it has to do with the expectations of folks like ARRL and FCC being so low, the candidates are living up to exactly what is expected of them. #And that unfortunately is very little anymore.

Thank you for your invitation to join ARRL but as it stands now, I'm having difficulty even deciding whether I want to bother remaining #a ham. #The investment I currently have in ham gear would go a long way toward buying nice photography gear and a new copy of Adobe Photoshop.

Please remove me from ARRL's mailing list.

73,

Chris Johnson, WA2ZDY/4

Hey, I would have asked Katie when she and her pals are going to petition for the written tests to be removed. I am sure she would lie and say "it ain't so" but I give them 2 years. The league is only out to pander to the ones who want it easier. These brilliant persons so unfairly kept out by the code test will now challenge the written tests and with the leagues help....WIN

K5FH

12-22-2006, 03:37 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 21 2006,19:16)]You are reacting to the fact that you are no longer the primary target audience of the articles. Like it or not (and I can see you do not), the focus of much of the content has shifted -- downward, if you prefer the pejorative -- to a more basic or entry-level group. They still run articles aimed at a more technically astute constituency, but the weighting is steadily shifting to newbies.
In the mid-1970s the old Ham Radio magazine tried essentially the same thing with a separate magazine, the short-lived Ham Radio Horizons which was aimed at the newbies. #The difference was, instead of dumbing down HR they instead put the newbie stuff in HRH. #HRH only lasted a couple years if memory serves.

Looking back, it appears that HRH was an experiment to see if a newbie magazine for hams would generate a readership. #It didn't.

Quote[/b] ]This is also showing up in the series of articles by Joel Hallas on the workings of a transceiver and in the new "glossary" of terms. I think they are doing a great job in that regard, and I applaud the new content and look of the magazine.

Don't misunderstand, I think that's good stuff, even for us old timers. #But it's part of the basic trend recognized by most of us - focus is shifting toward the lowest common denominator.

Quote[/b] ]Read the review of the MFJ power tap. While it is very possible that someone at the League might have tipped MFJ off to the findings, letting them devise some quick alterations to ameliorate the short-comings, it didn't seem that the reviewer pulled any punches.

MFJ has long been notorious for their quality control problems and I agree, they probably tipped off MFJ beforehand so they could fix the problem. #You won't offend MFJ by pointing out what we and they have known for years.

When a QST reviewer has a problem with a YaeComWood rig he's testing he calls the factory and they overnight a new rig (without the problem, of course) to ARRL HQ. #Would they do that for Joe Ham? #Suuurrre they would...

KI4QFY

12-22-2006, 03:50 AM

Oh great, another QRZ bellyache thread. Woo Hoo!

KA4DPO

12-22-2006, 03:57 AM

I'm pissed.... I subscribed to QST and didn't get my crayons.

K5FH

12-22-2006, 04:04 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4QFY @ Dec. 21 2006,20:50)]Oh great, another QRZ bellyache thread. Woo Hoo!
Ain't they all?

K9ALT

12-22-2006, 05:04 AM

Don't mind them Chris...I liked your letter. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Glenn, K9ALT

W6GQ

12-22-2006, 05:36 AM

I hear ya

KI4NGN

12-22-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 21 2006,17:13)]Quote[/b] ]Today's rigs are a lot easier to operate than they ever were, and that's the logical result of advancing technology. Hams have always contributed to the art of radio communications, which is another way of saying that they have contributed to the advancing technology. Now it has advanced to the point where the capabilities we used to dream about in ham radio are now common place. That's the irony...we've reached where we used to dream about being, so what do we dream about now?
Falderal,......Road Apples,......Hooey!
Go take a look at the help forums on this site and count the number of "Help, I can't program my radio" threads there are. Compare that to 20-30 years ago when everything VHF and up was crystal controlled. I can't count the number of HT's available today that don't even have a simple rotary squelch control. Forget how to get to the menu's and your bright, shiny, "technologically advanced" HT turns into a paperweight.

Quote[/b] ]How about a nice, simple, HF transceiver using discreet components, some DSP processing, DDS tuning, etc, etc? Not going to happen, you know it, and you know why. If they published some relatively simple (compared to today's rigs) construction article, it would sink like a rock. Why? Because it could never compete in performance with today's rigs, yet it would certainly be in their price ranges.
More Hooey!
My K2/100 is 95% discreet components and has performance to rival all but the most expensive commercially built rigs costing two to three times as much. It took me two weeks off and on after work to build it. No fancy equipment other than a DMM and a temperature controlled soldering iron.

K2 Performance charts (http://www.elecraft.com/K2_perf.htm)

Your just proving Chris's point. Ham Radio is no longer the technical hobby it once was. By the ARRL pushing quantity over quality it's becoming more and more an appliance operators hobby. QST doesn't publish technical articles anymore because a lot of their subscribers wouldn't know what they were reading.
Did you READ my post? Right after the paragraph you quoted I acknowledged the K2!

You missed my point.

There was a time when QST would run a series of articles detailing a complete xcvr (just a technical example). I didn't say that an op can't do that now, I said that it is not practical for the magazine to do that now. First some ham would have to design a complete xcvr, build it, prove that it works, measure its performance, etc, etc. My contention is that the series of articles that detailed the theory and construction of a rig with the K2's quality of design, contruction, and performance from beginning to end would be more than is practical for any publication. Would you want them to publish for the construction of a rig that was inferior??

Perhaps QEX covers that now, I don't know. Chris mentioned QST and that is what I was responding to.

Today's rigs are easier to operate. Someone disagreed because of all of the problems that somes hams seem to have today. I stated easier because today's rigs don't require PA tuning, drive adjustments, don't require knowledge to allow for warmup, to take initial drift into account, etc, etc. The additional, essentially digital features of rigs stymie some ops just as PCs are not easy for some people.

Today's HTs don't have squelch knobs? They don't have mic gain and PA level knobs either. Where would you have them put them? They're making devices that are essentially set and forget for repeater operations. That's what they're designed for. If you want to use one for more than that, the capability is there, but its a pain. if it's a pain for you often, then I suggest that you got the wrong rig for your purposes!

QST doesn't publish technical articles because a lot of today's readers wouldn't understand what they were reading? Again I'll ask, what would you have them publish? I'm serious, what would you suggest that is applicable to today?

Ham radio is not the technical hobbie that it once was. Yes and no. The rigs have certainly benefited from the advances in technology, even if that means they have removed what operating the rigs once meant. Seems that the rig always has been and is still just one part of the hobby. Antennas and feedlines are still there the last time I looked, and this has always been an area of experimentation and construction for hams.

So what is it that you want out of rigs? What is it that you feel is missing? What would make it once again a more technical hobby from your perspective? You complain that it's not, so seriously, what would make you happy? Not talking about the licensing now, but the hobby itself, which is what you are complaining about. Would you like for rig technology to back up, replace ICs with discreet transistors? Go back to tubes? I'm serious, this is not rhetorical, how could the hobby change to where you felt it was technical again?

I didn't mention it in my first post because most of you guys have heard me say it before. I support the league because it is the only game in town.

Mike

W3MIV

12-22-2006, 12:27 PM

I think it silly, and not a little childish, to blame the ARRL because the nature of technology (of all sorts) has changed and carried us along with it.

Anyone who wishes to do so may build a K2. Anyone who wishes to do so may homebrew the equivalent of a Collins KWM. Anyone who wishes to do so may design and build a whole new SCR rig.

But most of us are buying transceivers designed and manufactured by commercial makers who operate at the forward edges of technology, not the following shadows of history. The simple fact of this is that rigs today are far more complex -- were my ProIII built of the components in used just thirty years ago, it would be vastly bulkier and greatly less capable.

The need for "operational" expertise has increased while the need for "technical" expertise has lessened. THe changes in QST reflect a realistic approach to meeting the need to strike a balance between this reality and the desire to encourage a sense of wonder and curiosity -- a sense that is similar to that which attracted YOU to amateur radio, but more in line with what is a more realistic reflection of today's youth.

That society has changed is not the fault of the ARRL and more than it is the fault of the AOPA that aviation has changed.

And it wasn't the ARRL who pushed to remove the Morse test; it was the FCC who has done that. You could look it up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

N1LAF

12-22-2006, 12:37 PM

I agree with Ed (HTW) here. As a professional, it would go right to the circular file after the first paragraph. Letters that start like that usually is all complaining with no suggestions. Chris, you may feel better, temporarily, but after reading the letter, I can't help feeling that you have some unhappiness in general that is driving the letter, and other posts as well. I wish you well.

Amateur Radio as a hobby has a lot to offer because the field is so large. You have transmitters, receivers, transceivers, antennas, modes of operation, computer interfacing, contesting, etc, a little bit for everyone. And I imagine the ARRL feels it needs to accomodate everyone that it can, and not just one segment. To cover a large base, some will feel their area is watered down. And there is a business aspect about it. Practical matters and course of action.

I like turning knobs and dials and make those manual adjustments. I understand. Today's modern radios don't have that, its mostly automatic. I do appreciate the antenna auto tuner in the car, I press that button, and watch the SWR meter as the tuner does its thing. But at home, I have a big tuner with three tuning knobs, so I can have my cake and eat it to!

wa3vjb

12-22-2006, 12:52 PM

I got a similar recruitment form letter from Katie this summer, and I was delighted to get a direct acknowledgment that she had received my response outlining concerns about her group. I’m still waiting for her promised (3X) reply. Her latest form letter was a chance for me to remind her that she failed to follow through.

And so it goes with the group in Newington as a whole. Lots of lip service when members and non-members express their interests, and very little action taken. It’s the way they are set up. Their political and administrative system is loaded with inertia, and configured to insulate against the greater Amateur community.

Yet, their little non-profit publishing outfit laughably claims to be a “national association” for the hobby. What ? With 4 out of 5 people refusing to subscribe? More people would join them if they could easily see they were valued by that organization. In reality, certain League people seem to go out of their way to alienate those who’ve expressed genuine and affirmative ideas.

Even the FCC has shown disappointment and frustration as it struggles to understand what it is the ARRL wants from regulators on various occasions. Better ideas from non-League sources, filed in the public arena with the agency, come along and now are held alongside those from Newington. Increasingly, we see the FCC judging these ideas superior, and the League is left behind.

All of these points are attached to the behavior of the people who’ve been running the ARRL. None of these points reflect a problem in the Amateur community as a whole. That’s why I believe the hobby will continue to move ahead, valued by those we interact with independently of the moribund, outmoded style of representation stuck in a rut in Newington, a suburb of Hartford.

Paul/VJB

Oh -- Chris -- I've got to bust you for your "bunch of women" reference. I would have knocked you more strongly but it sounds like you're getting along with them in that photo phorum you've written about elsewhere. As far as making your point is concerned, Katie is a woman, and I would bet she would not like being referred to as part of a category in the manner in which you have done so. That automatically undercuts your creds ...

KI4NGN

12-22-2006, 01:54 PM

If 20% of all hams are subscribers, that's not near a majority, but 150K (assuming ~750K hams) members does entitle them to claim to be a national association. What other organization represents even a significant fraction of that number?

4 out of 5 refuse to subscribe? Says who?

I'm not debating that 80% of hams are not members; I'll accept those numbers. I'm saying that you use 'refuse' as some sort of indictment. How do you know that most of that 80% have even thought about joining? Where have the majority or even significant number of approximately 600K hams stated that they 'refuse' to join?

I own guns, but I'm not an NRA member. Does that mean that I refuse to join? You have no clue.

Those who are so adamantly opposed to the ARRL are so sure that their convictions and presumptions are fact, but guess what, they're not.

And no one ever offers an alternative.

Mike

WA2ZDY

12-22-2006, 02:49 PM

Paul, your point on the "bunch of women" is well taken. I worded it that way for a reason. Ham radio has always been said not to attract women in greater numbers because women supposedly do not find technical things appealing. Whether or not that's true I don't know. What I do know is that the women I deal with on the photography forum enjoy things technical in an era when it's not necessary. If that can be the case in photography, why is a hobby like ham radio, a pursuit of technology, so unable to remain as such? Photography used to require technology to be used but technology was not the main pursuit.

As for this one:
Quote[/b] ]QST doesn't publish technical articles because a lot of today's readers wouldn't understand what they were reading? Again I'll ask, what would you have them publish? I'm serious, what would you suggest that is applicable to today?
I'd like to see QST be a journal of ham radio, the technical hobby it was meant to be. Folks with no interest in technology should take up a hobby more to their liking. Elitist? No. There is a hobby for everyone and ham radio is for technically interested folks. CB, FRS, GMRS are communication hobbies, ham radio is a technical hobby.

What has happened to ham radio is akin to a guy saying "I don't know a two cycle from four but I'm a car mechanic hobbyist." I suspect "Car Mechanic Magazine" might take exception to changing their basic article to "how to count the cylinders in your engine" and "if your engine has no spark plugs, it might be a diesel." But that's exactly what's happened to ham radio.

Unhappy? You bet. The technical hobby I joined up as a 13 year old is no more. And frankly, I miss it.

Flame on folks, flame on.

w0tdh

12-22-2006, 02:50 PM

They say a photo is worth a 1000 words................

KI4NGN

12-22-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 22 2006,07:49)]As for this one:
Quote[/b] ]QST doesn't publish technical articles because a lot of today's readers wouldn't understand what they were reading? Again I'll ask, what would you have them publish? I'm serious, what would you suggest that is applicable to today?
I'd like to see QST be a journal of ham radio, the technical hobby it was meant to be. #Folks with no interest in technology should take up a hobby more to their liking. #Elitist? #No. #There is a hobby for everyone and ham radio is for technically interested folks. # CB, FRS, GMRS are communication hobbies, ham radio is a technical hobby. #

What has happened to ham radio is akin to a guy saying "I don't know a two cycle from four but I'm a car mechanic hobbyist." #I suspect "Car Mechanic Magazine" might take exception to changing their basic article to "how to count the cylinders in your engine" and "if your engine has no spark plugs, it might be a diesel." # But that's exactly what's happened to ham radio.

Unhappy? #You bet. #The technical hobby I joined up as a 13 year old is no more. # And frankly, I miss it.

Flame on folks, flame on.
You still didn't answer the question Chris.

"I'd like to see QST be a journal of ham radio, the technical hobby it was meant to be. "

That is a nebulous statement. What does it mean? What would you like to see them publish?

You started a little younger than me...I was 15. I agree, the hobby is not the same as it was. Radio waves haven't changed. Antennas haven't changed. Theory hasn't changed. The technology used in the radios has changed, big time!

Seriously. You said what you want, but you haven't said what it means or how to get there. What is the content of the ideal journal of ham radio in 2007? I am very interested.

How would you change ham radio to make it more technical? Again, I'm not being rhetorical, I am seriously interested. What do you mean when you say that you want the hobby to be more technical?

I suspect that you are missing the days of simpler gear. Sorry my friend, I really am, but those days are gone.

Mike

W3MIV

12-22-2006, 06:26 PM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 22 2006,10:49)]Unhappy? #You bet. #The technical hobby I joined up as a 13 year old is no more. # And frankly, I miss it.
No flames. I rue your decision. And I still think you are wrong and urge you to rethink it.

But I cannot let the above quoted comment stand. If you miss the "technical" aspect of ham radio, that is your own fault. It has not gone away. Just because both technology and the crop of newbies has changed, does not mean that YOU have to change.

Your "regret" sounds for all the world like that of a bitter old man who blames the world for his growing old and refuses to make the best of what he has remaining.

Again, I would hope you would rethink your stated decision. We need people of your experience and commitment now more than ever.

73

AC0H

12-22-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote[/b] ]If 20% of all hams are subscribers, that's not near a majority, but 150K (assuming ~750K hams) members does entitle them to claim to be a national association. What other organization represents even a significant fraction of that number?

A national association yes. There's only one in all of the IARU member countries.

Representing ALL US amateurs? Not even close. And yes, they have claimed that on more than one occasion and place.

WB2WIK

12-22-2006, 06:47 PM

I can't blame the League for most of what's changed in amateur radio. I blame them for a little bit of it...they weren't representing me by pushing for a no-code license, as an example. Perhaps it would have happened, anyway, but I regret what occurred.

Then, I do support their practice and bulletin transmissions; that they have an active, useful and open-to-the-public ham radio station which is accessible most days (I've operated it, myself!); they manage several popular contests, including the one which has probably trained more new operators in real operating skill than any other single event (Field Day); have a useful and easy to navigate website; and lots of other stuff.

I still take the hobby as a technical one. I operate "appliances" but they're mostly old, and fully maintained by me. My main HF transceiver is a 28 year-old model and I enjoy using it. Wish I had my really old stuff from the 60s back, but it's my own fault for parting with it. I still build stuff. My 160m, 6m and 2m kW amps are all 100% homebrew, as is lots of stuff around the house. I use mostly commercially made antennas only because the manufacturers do a better job than I could without having milling machines and such. I still go out and dig the hole for the tower, install the bases, pour the concrete and put my initials in the pad, so I feel "attached" to the antenna installations... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I just got a little N0XAS Pico Keyer kit to play with over the holiday -- thanks, Dale. So, there's my technical involvement for the next week or so... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WB2WIK/6

AE6IP

12-22-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 22 2006,06:49)]I'd like to see QST be a journal of ham radio, the technical hobby it was meant to be. Folks with no interest in technology should take up a hobby more to their liking. Elitist? No. There is a hobby for everyone and ham radio is for technically interested folks. CB, FRS, GMRS are communication hobbies, ham radio is a technical hobby.

Amateur radio has never been a particularly technical hobby. One corner of it has always been available for people with a modest interest in electronics.

As a hobby it has always been a bit like model railroading, where some people like to create scenery, others like to lay track, and still others like to run trains. In amateur radio we have antenna enthusiasts, electronics hobbiest, and dx chasers, among others.

Quote[/b] ]
What has happened to ham radio is akin to a guy saying "I don't know a two cycle from four but I'm a car mechanic hobbyist." I suspect "Car Mechanic Magazine" might take exception to changing their basic article to "how to count the cylinders in your engine" and "if your engine has no spark plugs, it might be a diesel." But that's exactly what's happened to ham radio.

Nah. What has happened to ham radio is that the technology got far beyone what the average amateur is capable of doing in a hobby. It has always been true that most hams would rather use the radios than work on them. The technology has slowly evolved over the last fifty years to the point where they don't have to.

Meanwhile, the actual technology of the RF field has moved on beyond what ham enthusiasts are interested in. It's more like model railroaders who want to stay in the steam era because they don't like diesel.

Quote[/b] ]
Unhappy? You bet. The technical hobby I joined up as a 13 year old is no more. And frankly, I miss it.

Flame on folks, flame on.

No flames. But there's no reason why you can't still gravitate to the technical parts of the hobby.

Go get involved with the SDR folks, or take Cebik's antenna design course, or try to invent a new digital protocol for hf that takes into account the way hf noise behaves.

There are still plenty of opportunities to be technical if you want them.

KA4DPO

12-22-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote[/b] (w0tdh @ Dec. 22 2006,07:50)]They say a photo is worth a 1000 words................
What can I say, simply beautiful........

W3MIV

12-22-2006, 07:46 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 22 2006,15:15)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Dec. 22 2006,06:49)]I'd like to see QST be a journal of ham radio, the technical hobby it was meant to be. #Folks with no interest in technology should take up a hobby more to their liking. #Elitist? #No. #There is a hobby for everyone and ham radio is for technically interested folks. # CB, FRS, GMRS are communication hobbies, ham radio is a technical hobby.

Amateur radio has never been a particularly technical hobby. One corner of it has always been available for people with a modest interest in electronics.

As a hobby it has always been a bit like model railroading, where some people like to create scenery, others like to lay track, and still others like to run trains. #In amateur radio we have antenna enthusiasts, electronics hobbiest, and dx chasers, among others.

Quote[/b] ]
What has happened to ham radio is akin to a guy saying "I don't know a two cycle from four but I'm a car mechanic hobbyist." #I suspect "Car Mechanic Magazine" might take exception to changing their basic article to "how to count the cylinders in your engine" and "if your engine has no spark plugs, it might be a diesel." # But that's exactly what's happened to ham radio.

Nah. What has happened to ham radio is that the technology got far beyone what the average amateur is capable of doing in a hobby. It has always been true that most hams would rather use the radios than work on them. The technology has slowly evolved over the last fifty years to the point where they don't have to.

Meanwhile, the actual technology of the RF field has moved on beyond what ham enthusiasts are interested in. It's more like model railroaders who want to stay in the steam era because they don't like diesel.

Quote[/b] ]
Unhappy? #You bet. #The technical hobby I joined up as a 13 year old is no more. # And frankly, I miss it.

Flame on folks, flame on.

No flames. #But there's no reason why you can't still gravitate to the technical parts of the hobby.

Go get involved with the SDR folks, or take Cebik's antenna design course, or try to invent a new digital protocol for hf that takes into account the way hf noise behaves.

There are still plenty of #opportunities to be technical if you want them.
We're going to have to stop agreeing like this, Martin; it is not good for our images.

73

K0RGR

12-22-2006, 09:02 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 22 2006,05:27)]I think it silly, and not a little childish, to blame the ARRL because the nature of technology (of all sorts) has changed and carried us along with it.

Anyone who wishes to do so may build a K2. Anyone who wishes to do so may homebrew the equivalent of a Collins KWM. Anyone who wishes to do so may design and build a whole new SCR rig.

But most of us are buying transceivers designed and manufactured by commercial makers who operate at the forward edges of technology, not the following shadows of history. The simple fact of this is that rigs today are far more complex -- were my ProIII built of the components in used just thirty years ago, it would be vastly bulkier and greatly less capable.

The need for "operational" expertise has increased while the need for "technical" expertise has lessened. THe changes in QST reflect a realistic approach to meeting the need to strike a balance between this reality and the desire to encourage a sense of wonder and curiosity -- a sense that is similar to that which attracted YOU to amateur radio, but more in line with what is a more realistic reflection of today's youth.

That society has changed is not the fault of the ARRL and more than it is the fault of the AOPA that aviation has changed.

And it wasn't the ARRL who pushed to remove the Morse test; it was the FCC who has done that. You could look it up. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well put...

Since you mention AOPA I will point out that they publish the questions and answers for the pilot's tests now, too. The thought of somebody who memorized those questions flying over my house is a bit troublesome.

I love building things, and hope to find time to do more of it. I'm not a 'real' engineer, so I lack the math background to do proper scientific analyses of things as so many other hams do. But I am generally capable of putting other people's circuit gems to work for me.

But I will admit, if the next sunspot cycle is as good as they expect it to be, I don't plan to be doing any building at that time - my spare hours will be spent on the air!

kc4ylv

12-24-2006, 07:04 PM

The comparison of digital vs film cameras is pretty terrible, in my opinion.

People shoot manual film because they're in love with the look of film. It's technically superior in some aspects, technically inferior in others. Their desire to shoot manual film isn't a rejection of the interface that digital cameras provide, but of the media and recording method.

Moreover, people recognize that though the older technology is beautiful and simple, it's nigh on irresponsible to not be aware of technological advancements to your hobby. It's fine if you don't like digital but if you single-mindedly dismiss any digital photo as 'junk' you're going to stop getting invites to the photo club meeting VERY quickly.

if some of you really think that a clegg 2m rig is the pinnacle of amateur radio interfaces, well, then, yeah, go ahead and shred your license, because we're never going back to that.

W0LPQ

12-24-2006, 07:25 PM

RGR, AOPA itself does not have anything to do with publishing test questions. #There are schools (King, Sporty's) that have in house classes, as well as Gleim and other that publish guides. #

Having taken the FAA written, I can tell you ... it ain't easy.! #Taking the FAA written, you have an FAA DER/DAR or other rep in the room. #Calculators, while ok to use, will be checked for formulas. #Any memory goes away. #I had my HP-41C and no memory modules plugged in ... FAA guy said fine, plus he knew how to clear anything that I might have had ... so he did just that ... cleared the memory. #Did not matter, I had nothing stored anyway. #

Just you, the test, and the calculator. #You did not really need an E-6 calculator, that was in back pages of the written. #

Plus, like the old FCC tests, handwritten notes, calculations and such that you wrote down on paper were taken and examined.

In my estimation, that paralleled taking the 2nd FCC Exam. #

Plus, to get your private, you need flight hours and solo time, plus the check off of your CFI. #Landing a single engine airplane in a cross wind is not like taking any FCC exam today.

Bill, W0LPQ/9
AOPA 0925086
EAA 184267