Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...
John Smith I
Let us take a little bit better look at this “unwritten policy” here,
see if we can make any logical analysis about it—get the “feel” for it,
if you will.
First, there are quite a bit of threads which make up the
rec.radio.amateur.??? “family of threads”:
rec.radio.amateur.antenna
rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
rec.radio.amateur.dx
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
rec.radio.amateur
rec.radio.amateur.misc
rec.radio.amateur.packet
Do you see one which is close to say “rec.radio.amateur.new-licensees?”
Or, “rec.radio.amateur.license .help?” "rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?"
No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing …
So, let us examine the existing threads, do any seem to be active in new
recruitment/licence help? No, you don’t see much of that either.
OK. So, examine them again, see may of these threads engaged in dialog
about how to recruit and spark interest in potential-new licensees? No,
not much of that either …
Hmmm, so what do we see?
We see a bunch of protective, selfish, self-serving individuals out to
protect their “turf!”
Now, why don’t we have more “new-blood” here? What, speak up, I can’t
seem to hear you?
Well, I’ll make one exception, Dee, she has expressed some desire,
willing to attempt and willingness towards the above.
What we really have is a bunch of these
"high-mighty-self-centered-jerks" attempting to get their new club house
built and escape there firmly shutting the door behind them, so as to
BAR any of the above from occurring.
Or, as Cecil would say, SWEET!
And you doubt Len? Really?
Regards,
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>To Whom It May Concern:
>
>Let us take a little bit better look at this “unwritten policy” here,
>see if we can make any logical analysis about it—get the “feel” for it,
>if you will.
>
>First, there are quite a bit of threads which make up the
>rec.radio.amateur.??? “family of threads”:
>rec.radio.amateur.antenna
>rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
>rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
>rec.radio.amateur.dx
>rec.radio.amateur.equipment
>rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
>rec.radio.amateur
>rec.radio.amateur.misc
>rec.radio.amateur.packet
>
>Do you see one which is close to say “rec.radio.amateur.new-licensees?”
> Or, “rec.radio.amateur.license .help?” "rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?"
>
>No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing …
help with radios I go the cber they can be rude but they will normaly
answer your questions
>
>So, let us examine the existing threads, do any seem to be active in new
>recruitment/licence help? No, you don’t see much of that either.
>
>OK. So, examine them again, see may of these threads engaged in dialog
>about how to recruit and spark interest in potential-new licensees? No,
>not much of that either …
well there is discussion of what DOES not requruit new hams
>
>Hmmm, so what do we see?
>
>We see a bunch of protective, selfish, self-serving individuals out to
>protect their “turf!”
>
>Now, why don’t we have more “new-blood” here? What, speak up, I can’t
>seem to hear you?
>
>Well, I’ll make one exception, Dee, she has expressed some desire,
>willing to attempt and willingness towards the above.
I do as well although I tend to work more one on one have helped
launch about 8 hams derectly and the end of Code testing will
certainly help me with the sorts of pitch I like to make
>
>What we really have is a bunch of these
>"high-mighty-self-centered-jerks" attempting to get their new club house
>built and escape there firmly shutting the door behind them, so as to
>BAR any of the above from occurring.
we certainly do
>
>Or, as Cecil would say, SWEET!
>
>And you doubt Len? Really?
>
>Regards,
>JS
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
KH6HZ
> Do you see one which is close to say "rec.radio.amateur.new-licensees?"
> Or, "rec.radio.amateur.license.help?" "rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?"
>
>>No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing .
The first two would fall under rec.radio.amateur.misc, unless there was
adequate demand to justify creation of a sub-group, which there isn't, from
what I've seen.
Help could be many things, if you needed antenna help there is a group
called .antenna, if you wanted homebrew help you could ask in .homebrew.
.misc is the "catch all" for discussions which are not applicable elsewhere.
Since there is next to zero discussions concerning new licenses or help in
.misc, we can only conclude there is zero demand for such a group.
The 3rd probably isn't relevant at all, since you're not very likely to do
much recruiting on USENET. Google Amateur Radio and your first hit is the
ARRL.
73
KH6HZ
John Smith I
> ...
> The 3rd probably isn't relevant at all, since you're not very likely to do
> much recruiting on USENET. Google Amateur Radio and your first hit is the
> ARRL.
>
> 73
> KH6HZ
>
>
I think it obvious, the new amateur is not going to tolerate the ARRL,
many of the old ones couldn't ... I think even the ARRL has seen that
written on the wall.
If you are not going to recruit from the internet, where, the dum-dums
on the football field? Bars? Churches? Parks? The homeless?
I am afraid the new crowd will need to come from here ... but hey, that
is only one mans' opinion.
JS
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KH6HZ wrote:
>
> > ...
>> The 3rd probably isn't relevant at all, since you're not very likely to do
>> much recruiting on USENET. Google Amateur Radio and your first hit is the
>> ARRL.
>>
>> 73
>> KH6HZ
>>
>>
>
>I think it obvious, the new amateur is not going to tolerate the ARRL,
>many of the old ones couldn't ... I think even the ARRL has seen that
>written on the wall.
indeed the best one can see the ARRL as is misguided but they are too
out of step
>
>If you are not going to recruit from the internet, where, the dum-dums
>on the football field? Bars? Churches? Parks? The homeless?
I think he favours closing down ham radio if the osrt He wants are
becomeing a part of it
>
>I am afraid the new crowd will need to come from here ... but hey, that
>is only one mans' opinion.
here or somewhere like here
tis a pity we casn redecoate a bit
KH6HZ
> I think it obvious, the new amateur is not going to tolerate the
> ARRL, many of the old ones couldn't ... I think even the ARRL has
> seen that written on the wall.
I suspect the potential amateur -- remember, the context of the discussion
was recruitment and googling 'amateur radio' -- isn't very likely to have a
clue about the politics of ham radio
> If you are not going to recruit from the internet, where, the
> dum-dums on the football field? Bars? Churches? Parks? The
> homeless?
People interested in ham radio, who come on the internet to find out about
ham radio, are not very likely to do it in a USENET newsgroup. They're far
more likely to use a search engine to research their interest, and that
research (whether good or bad, whether you like it or not) is going to point
to the ARRL.
Google, Yahoo, MSN all have the ARRL as their top hit for the search term
'amateur radio'.
> I am afraid the new crowd will need to come from here ... but hey,
> that is only one mans' opinion.
If they came "here", e.g. RRAP, they'd run away from ham radio so fast, if
they concluded even a portion of the drivel posted in this newsgroup was
reflective of ham radio as a whole.
73
KH6HZ
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>John Smith I <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it obvious, the new amateur is not going to tolerate the
>> ARRL, many of the old ones couldn't ... I think even the ARRL has
>> seen that written on the wall.
>
>I suspect the potential amateur -- remember, the context of the discussion
>was recruitment and googling 'amateur radio' -- isn't very likely to have a
>clue about the politics of ham radio
so all one has to do is listen the ARRL a few minutes and eyes begin
to glaze over
>
>
>> If you are not going to recruit from the internet, where, the
>> dum-dums on the football field? Bars? Churches? Parks? The
>> homeless?
>
>People interested in ham radio, who come on the internet to find out about
>ham radio, are not very likely to do it in a USENET newsgroup. They're far
>more likely to use a search engine to research their interest, and that
>research (whether good or bad, whether you like it or not) is going to point
>to the ARRL.
>
>Google, Yahoo, MSN all have the ARRL as their top hit for the search term
>'amateur radio'.
>
>
>> I am afraid the new crowd will need to come from here ... but hey,
>> that is only one mans' opinion.
>
>If they came "here", e.g. RRAP, they'd run away from ham radio so fast, if
>they concluded even a portion of the drivel posted in this newsgroup was
>reflective of ham radio as a whole.
>
>
>73
>KH6HZ
>
John Smith I
> ...
> I suspect the potential amateur -- remember, the context of the discussion
> was recruitment and googling 'amateur radio' -- isn't very likely to have a
> clue about the politics of ham radio
>
Personally, if the applicant has "political aspirations", I would refer
him/her into some .political group ... we really do NOT need them in the
hobby of amateur radio--and that is possibly the greatest reason I'd
like to see the absence of the ARRL.
> People interested in ham radio, who come on the internet to find out about
> ham radio, are not very likely to do it in a USENET newsgroup. They're far
> more likely to use a search engine to research their interest, and that
> research (whether good or bad, whether you like it or not) is going to point
> to the ARRL.
USENET? I said "THE INTERNET." (however, schools and community
events/functions are a good place to begin recruiting at) And, they
should be shown the availability of training materials made available by
just-little-plain-old-amateurs--it is much more than enough to get them
through any test, else we fail again ... but, NOT ARRL materials, that
will turn them away most of all.
>
> Google, Yahoo, MSN all have the ARRL as their top hit for the search term
> 'amateur radio'.
Yes, that is a shame :(
> If they came "here", e.g. RRAP, they'd run away from ham radio so fast, if
> they concluded even a portion of the drivel posted in this newsgroup was
> reflective of ham radio as a whole.
Personally, I do not run from a good fight, argument, not even a
discussion--doesn't look like you ran too far--nor the others here with
us ...
Good points, all of 'em ...
Warmest regards,
JS
LenAn...@ieee.org
13:56:45 -0800
>To Whom It May Concern:
Ackshully, it don't concern any of the newsgroup's gods of radio.
They are above such petty annoyances from low-lifes not
worshippers of the Great God of Morse.
But, on the sheer face of what you wrote RIGHT ON!
>Let us take a little bit better look at this "unwritten policy" here,
>see if we can make any logical analysis about it-get the "feel" for it,
>if you will.
>
>First, there are quite a bit of threads which make up the
>rec.radio.amateur.??? "family of threads":
>rec.radio.amateur.antenna
>rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
>rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
>rec.radio.amateur.dx
>rec.radio.amateur.equipment
>rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
>rec.radio.amateur
>rec.radio.amateur.misc
>rec.radio.amateur.packet
>
>Do you see one which is close to say "rec.radio.amateur.new-licensees?"
> Or, "rec.radio.amateur.license .help?" "rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?"
>
>No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing ...
The stock answer is "That's the ARRL's Job!"
"Just go to the ARRL website and order 'Now You're Talking'!"
The "cod-liver oil" prescription for newbies.
According to what nearly all olde-tymers in here say, they
are VEs and "elmer" (teach) newbies "all the time."
Strange, but, according to law, VEs only proctor examinations.
Do they also break the law when "teaching" during testing
time?
Now a FEW may actually undertake a personal note to the
"enthused." Oddly enough, the contents, phraseology, and
general tone is standard boilerplate from, guess who, ARRL.
Believe it or not, I've gotten a couple of those. Just a
dozen years ago.
That will be followed by a personal story of "being a teen-
ager, collecting bus tokens and shoe leather to walk to the
nearest FCC Field Office and tremble before the stern,
unforgiving eyes of the FCC Agent while, in flop sweat,
they gave PhD-dissertation Answers to "the hardest thing
they did in their lives." Then walked back barefoot in
the snow, uphill both ways.
Then, to complete the troika, there is the stern admonission
to "learn all you can" or "it's the start of a lifetime of
learning" or "complete this and your friends and neighbors
will come over and admire your (great) intellectual reward."
Variations on the above abound but are the essence of the
standard singing to a chorus of their peers. [high-fives
all around]
In here there is scant mention of radio being "fun" in and
of itself. One MUST work DX on HF with CW. Doing less is
FAILURE. Then there's the "Work Ethic" on morse code
cognition: "One MUST constantly work, work, work to be
good, work at it like nothing else in life!" and other
assorted locker-room halftime shouting and hollering.
"Failure is not an option!" "One MUST MUST MUST know
morse!!!" "You aren't a 'good ham' if you don't!"
What of those than can't "get" the code? Shun them! They
are worthless beings, unfit to inhabit the same earth as
the Mighty Macho Morsemen! "Stupid!" "Can't demonstrate
their willingness to "work!"
What of those (like me) who don't CARE to "do code?" Ah,
that has been the MMM's quandry. They do NOT know how to
handle such people...especially those who were active in
REAL radio long before their first license. Their thoughts
have always used themselves as role models, being suitably
imprinted as teenagers and striving ever since to be
professional amateurs! The closest they've come to
"handling" such rebellious heathen is to play-act a
mother (or, if Catholic, a Nun) and condescendingly
admonish a "child" who has misbehaved! [Miccolis'
conscious or unconscious manner] "Naughty, naughty,
momma spank!" :-(
>So, let us examine the existing threads, do any seem to be active in new
>recruitment/licence help? No, you don't see much of that either.
Oh, "that's the job of the ARRL!" Or of religious
ministries that send their four-year-olds (who are
always genius-precocious and have full adult English
comprehension) for "instant" license test completion.
[in 1998]
Mush-minded macho middle-school misfits will always growl
(in pubertic tenor tones) "Wassa matta, ya too DUMB ta
pass a test?!?" Those are always unidentifiable anony-
mousies hiding behind curious handles such as "Cmdr
Buzz Corey" (a long-defunct failed TV character from
American black-and-white TV of long-ago days). Those can
be shined off, of course, but those are likely to have
that adolescent atty-tood into well past middle age.
What tickles me are those "personal experiences" during
open-to-the-public events like Field Day. By their
description civilians "always cluster around hams doing
beeping morse, naturally showing an 'interest' in morse
code." Ahem, those of the public crowd around the
STRANGE, wondering whatinhell it is, and hardly ever
give a damn about it later. Amateur morsemen do a LOT
of such morse myth manufacturing.
>OK. So, examine them again, see may of these threads engaged in dialog
>about how to recruit and spark interest in potential-new licensees? No,
>not much of that either ...
Well, as you've mentioned, Dee has paid lip service to that,
but, much earlier, Hans Brakob said much more about his
involvement. Hans quit trying to post in here, noise level
way too high. Can't say I blame him. He is now on the
MODERATOR list. Woe be unto some of the arrogant, posturing,
self-centered self-appointed-gods who have crossed him in the
past in here...
<cue Cranky Spanky> "But, Len, I've had many a civil
discussion with Hans...<blah, blah, blah>
>Hmmm, so what do we see?
>
>We see a bunch of protective, selfish, self-serving individuals out to
>protect their "turf!"
Territorial Imperative! Yes, built into the human psyche.
Ya know, CB on "11 meters" was created in 1958. That's
49 years ago and the HATRED of "mere civilians"
occupying their precious little sliver of spectrum
(largely unused at the time) knew no bounds. Especially
so when there was NO CODE TEST of those (bottom-feeding
river-slime civlians) to use it! That bigotry remained
to rot their souls and for them to pass it on to later
generations to rot the souls of those. POSSESSIVENESS!
It was "theirs!" Geez.
>Now, why don't we have more "new-blood" here? What, speak up, I can't
>seem to hear you?
Well, there was ONE for sure. Val Germann in Missouri.
A darling of Dick Carroll, SK, then W0EX. Germann said
ALL the right code words, worshipped the same code
gods, was praised and honored, etc. Carroll was still
living when Germann opted out. According to Brian
Burke, Germann is still a Technician class, hasn't
shown up in here since he bailed.
Here's to "TURF:" May it always be trod. By ANYONE.
Regardez silverplate,
LA
LenAn...@ieee.org
On Jan 27, 5:13�pm, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> KH6HZ wrote: > ...
>
>I think it obvious, the new amateur is not going to tolerate the ARRL,
>many of the old ones couldn't ... I think even the ARRL has seen that
>written on the wall.
"Tolerance" or "intolerance" develops later. The obvious huge
base of ARRL publications will attract most newbies. That and
the constant mention of the ARRL by all the olde-tymers.
Newbies haven't yet learned any better.
The FACT of the matter is that the ARRL has failed to garner
enough memberships from the largest class: Technician. They
acknowledge their existance but do little else, preferring to
go to their core membership of olde-tymers, the beepers.
While the above statement cannot be proven by "official"
pollsters, they can't be disproven either. A random sampling
of opinions is enough to secure that for discussion (except
for Cranky Spanky). ARRL is very, very secretive about its
membership demographics, won't even reveal total membership
but twice a year and then only for QST ad sales purposes.
It does not have to reveal anything since QST has the largest
readership number in the USA and is a virtual monopoly on
the ad market. Advertisers are what keeps all periodicals
afloat...including "membership magazines."
>I am afraid the new crowd will need to come from here ... but hey, that
>is only one mans' opinion.
Not at all, John, you be wrong there. ARRL has periodical and
publication racks on the floors of HRO and Radio Shack and
other stores to catch all eyes. They have ads on websites
but very few non-ARRL-produced periodicals having to do with
radio-electronics. ARRL depends heavily on olde-tymers who
were weaned on the League diamond and may know no other
source of amateur radio information. Those olde-tymers
are constantly mentioning the League. Word of mouth is always
effective and costs the League nothing.
For example, when someone asks for copies of the Question
Pools, olde-tymers invariably point to the ARRL. However,
the QP can be obtained directly from the folks who generate
them at www.ncvec.org. Part 97 of Title 47 C.F.R. can be
obtained free and are exact copies of their original printed form,
directly from the Government Printing Office website through
links at the FCC's website. Olde-tymers will invariably
point to the ARRL again as the "source" of federal government
information. ARRL "edits" the GPO copyright-free regulations
"to be more readable." "More readable?" These old eyes can
read GPO Codes of Federal Regulations just fine in their
regular form. Part 97 is one of the smaller Parts in Title 47.
Newbies will listen to olde-tymers since they haven't YET
learned who are what, hence they will be indoctrinated into
the League. That is part of the 'conditioned thinking' that
pervades US amateur radio. The ARRL "can do no wrong"
is a constant underlining to what nearly all olde-tymers say.
"They control the vertical, they control the horizontal" and
they have created their own outer limits which none can
breach.
But, look at some other things for change. Check
www.ncvec.org for the number of VECs in the USA. Only
one of them is the ARRL. Look at the recent (last decade)
decisions from the FCC on NPRMs...the League doesn't
get carte blanche on whatever it wants now...it was once
just pro forma to yield to ARRL desires. New, never-
before-licensed amateurs are and have been for the last
decade, coming more from the no-code-test Technician
class route. The ARRL was staunchly pro-code even to
just past WRC-03...despite the IARU taking up their stand
of having individual countries decide for themselves over
a year before WRC-03. Despite all that OPEN
INFORMATION, some of the League faithfull refuse to
acknowledge all that, giving more rationalizations
(incorrect ones at that) than a barrel full of red-hatted
monkeys going beep-beep all night long.
The final change will occur in February of this year. If
the ARRL wishes to survive with all its "free" services
intact, it needs to change with the times. It should NOT
treat newbies as little kiddies to be "educated the right
way." They MUST learn that their core membership
(of elderly beeping gentlemen) cannot last forever.
Excuses and myriad rationalizations don't cut it. It
WILL be interesting to see what they do.
Regardez silverplate,
LA
John Smith I
> ...
Len:
You know we have much common ground we agree upon.
At the heart of this whole matter is just a bunch of bad feelings/hurt
feelings. Kinda childish to any outside observer ...
A relatively few personalities close to the center of all this. From
what I see they mostly (if not all) possess extra licenses, they have
fed each other and become (blinded by the light--great song!)
I think, just by bringing attention to this, a logical examination will
put us back on course. Changes are in the making ...
In the end, we will find we all pull our pants on, one leg at a time
(well, Dee wears a dress sometimes, I'd imagine! Some of us don't! <grin>)
... and you know "the rest of the story" (paul harvey.)
Regards,
JS
John Smith I
Bob Brock
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Not at all, John, you be wrong there. ARRL has periodical and
> publication racks on the floors of HRO and Radio Shack and
> other stores to catch all eyes.
Not really trying to change the subject, but I went to the local
bookstore and two Radio Shacks trying to get a copy of the General
Class Study manual. Both Radio Shacks said that they no longer carry
the study guides. So, I opted to download the questions and answers
from the net for free and give that a shot.
Did two Radio Shack managers lie to me? Has anyone seen the ARRL
study guides? I didn't even see any of the "Now Your's Talking" books
at the local stores.
Dee Flint
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote in message
news:v22rr2h3ekp43h5mt...@4ax.com...
Radio Shack has basically gotten out of amateur radio. I haven't seen any
study guides there for a couple of years. Sometimes you can get them at
Barnes & Noble but you have to special order. In that case one might as
well order directly off the ARRL website.
The Technician license manual is no longer called "Now You're Talking". I
don't recall the new name.
Dee, N8UZE
KH6HZ
> Radio Shack has basically gotten out of amateur radio. I haven't
> seen any study guides there for a couple of years.
Me either. Radio Shack is pretty much cheaply-made, overpriced consumer
electronics these days. I go in there sparingly, it seems every 6 months
their focus seems to change. I think the last radio shack I went into had
50-75% of the store's floor space devoted to various cell phone accessories.
If any of them have ham radio manuals laying around, it is probably old
stock they haven't sold.
I believe for most people, the only viable option for buying a study guide
would be thru the ARRL or one of the other online sources, like W5YI.
73
kh6hz
Bob Brock
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G5KdnWeQjqLoQSDY...@comcast.com...
Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
back in demand.
So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way I see
it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio needs a
good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good start.
However, it was only the beginning.
Bob Brock
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
news:5alvh.194709$Yu6.1...@newsfe16.lga...
That says a lot about the growth of ham radio doesn't it?
KH6HZ
In response to "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net>:
> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
> them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
> back in demand.
Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.
Several years ago Radio Shack used to sell computers as well as stereos and
TVs. Now those product lines are all but missing from their stores. Why?
Lack of demand?
Not really. They simply cannot compete with Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. for
those products. First they don't have the floor space necessary in the
average Radio Shack to properly carry those goods, nor do they have the
economies of scale that those other mega-retailers have.
> So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the
> average ham is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo?
> The way I see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing.
> Ham radio needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license
> as a good start. However, it was only the beginning.
Then, Addressed to KH6HZ:
> That says a lot about the growth of ham radio doesn't it?
This is the decades-old "quantity over quality" argument which has been the
crux of ham radio's incentive licensing program for the past several
decades.
Sustained growth in amateur radio is simply an unrealistic expectation.
Today, there are 650k licensed amateurs (and decreasing) with a rough
population of 300 million people.
Amateur radio cannot maintain a sustained growth in terms of raw numbers of
licensed amateurs. It simply will not happen. Even if you gave the licenses
away with no test -- walk into Radio Shack and buy a radio and start
transmitting right away -- it wouldn't happen. How many people use CB radios
today compared to, say, 20 years ago? How is the FRS doing these days in
terms of raw numbers?
Some people, I believe miguidedly so, keep focusing on the number of
licensed hams as an indicator of ham radio's health.
I believe this is an incorrect focus to take. Instead, I think people should
focus on quality over quantity. I ask myself this question:
Which would I rather have:
a) 10 guys and their wives who passed their license exams, never learned
anything else, bought some gear at HRO, and now park on a 2 meter repeater
and ragchew and make 'honey do' calls, or
b) 3 hams who took their license exams, continue to experiment with new
antennas, participate in MARS or ARES, and during emergencies help erect
antennas and provide emergency communications.
Personally, I'd rather have the 3 hams. The 10 guys and their wives are
certainly welcome, but if I had a choice, I'd take the 3 over the 10 any
day. The 3, in my opinion, help further the goals of Part 97.1 moreso than
the other 10.
Frankly, people need to stop focusing on raw numbers. 1 million licensed
hams is meaningless if they never turn on their radios and actually use the
frequencies they are allocated.
Anyway, like I said, raw numbers are impossible to sustain anyway. Ham radio
has a significant barriers to entry. It simply isn't going to have the "mass
appeal" to the population as a whole. It is a technical hobby. Life's
demands these days make it such that not many people are going to take up
ham radio.
Focusing on raw numbers is a losing proposition. Sure, you can continue to
fiddle with the licensing system, removing more and more "barriers to entry"
(aka: licensing requirements), but what is the end result? What do you do
when there ARE no more "barriers to entry" (aka: licensing requirements) and
'growth' is still negative?
The value of the ARS to the US isn't raw numbers -- it is having a trained
pool of radio operators. IMO, a trained pool of radio operators doesn't mean
you simply study, pass a test, and then you've gotten your "graduation
certificate". "Ok, I passed, don't have to study any longer". What is the
long-term value of that person, other than upping the body count, to the
ARS?
I believe (and I've stated this years ago) the focus needs to be
redirected... The ARS should strive for Quality over Quantity.
The doesn't mean make the tests "harder". No, they shouldn't require an BSEE
to pass.
Many moons ago, a few people in this forum equated morse code with a buggy
whip. Unfortunately, in today's world, it isn't morse code that is the
equivalent of a buggy whip, it is amateur radio as a whole.
73
kh6hz
Bob Brock
>"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>
>In response to "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net>:
>
>> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
>> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
>> them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
>> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
>> back in demand.
>
>Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.
You must be going to the wrong Radio Shacks. I saw stereos and TV's
all over the place when I went in. In theory, Radio Shack should be
in a much better position to sell ham equipment than HRO provided they
could sell it. If you don't believe in economy of scale, look at
Wal-Mart and get back with me.
KH6HZ
> You must be going to the wrong Radio Shacks. I saw stereos and TV's
> all over the place when I went in.
The last 4 Radio Shacks I've frequented had, perhaps 2-3k of floor space.
The last one I was in was appx. 20' wide and 150' in length. There's no way
such a store could carry a wide selection of TVs, stereos, computers, ham
gear, etc.
> In theory, Radio Shack should be in a much better position to sell
> ham equipment than HRO provided they could sell it. If you don't
> believe in economy of scale, look at Wal-Mart and get back with me.
Radio Shack isn't Walmart.
Maybe if the typical Radio Shack had the floor space of a Walmart, you might
have a point.
They do not, nor will they ever.
73
kh6hz
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
occionaly I will now you are tlaking at book store but otherwise only
avable on the wbe a ham store
we are simply dropping off the map so to say
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:16 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
they could but the ARS has a lousey rep in retail of being cheap who
wants to try and court us mass market
Bob Brock
Perhaps when HRO has the floor space of Radio Shack, you might have a
point.
>
>They do not, nor will they ever.
That was my point. You just picked the wrong two companies to
compare.
>
>73
>kh6hz
>
Dave Heil
> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>
> In response to "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net>:
>
>> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
>> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
>> them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
>> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
>> back in demand.
>
> Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.
I disagree, Mike. Radio Shack had its roots in selling amateur
equipment when it was a Boston firm decades back. When Tandy bought it,
it in good shape. It swallowed Allied Electronics back around 1970 and
either closed or turned into Radio Shack stores, all of the Allied
retail outlets. It owns and operates Allied Electronics as an
industrial distributor. Right now the company is in search of itself.
Why would people go to Radio Shack to buy bad stereo equipment or
overpriced computers when the big box stores are selling better and
cheaper stereo equipment and computers. Radio Shack is getting out of
the parts business. If you've been into one of the outlets recently,
you'll find the sales people woefully short on product knowledge. At
the moment, RadShack is like a cellular phone store which pushes batteries.
When Radio Shack made a decision to push amateur radio gear ten or
fifteen years back, it did so mostly with Radio Shack branded equipment
which was short on features and rather shoddily made. It pushed a few
2m and 70cm FM HT's and mobile transceivers and a few niche market rigs
like the low power 10m transceivers. The sales people were, again,
woefully short on product knowledge.
If Radio decided to sell a wide variety of amateur radio equipment of
assorted brands and it gave adequate sales training to its staff, it'd
be a big player. It has a great distribution network and outlets all
over the country. It could even dedicate a store in each major market
to amateur radio sales. It could offer discount pricing and service.
Unfortunately, it has never had management who "got it". I predict the
company may end up disappearing in a few years if things stay the way
there are.
> Several years ago Radio Shack used to sell computers as well as stereos and
> TVs. Now those product lines are all but missing from their stores. Why?
> Lack of demand?
> Not really. They simply cannot compete with Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. for
> those products. First they don't have the floor space necessary in the
> average Radio Shack to properly carry those goods, nor do they have the
> economies of scale that those other mega-retailers have.
Competition from Circuit City, Staples, Office Depot, Office Max, Walmart,
K-Mart and the like. These stores offer cheap prices compared to anything
offered by RadShack. Radio Shack could easily compete with these stores.
Only Circuit City has a large store dedicated to electronics. The
others have departments which are no larger than the average Radio Shack
store. The big box stores aren't offering ham gear and I don't think
Radio Shack could be successful in selling amateur radio gear in all of
its stores. We're still a very small consumer electronic market.
Dave K8MN
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "LenAn...@ieee.org" wrote:
>> Not at all, John, you be wrong there. ARRL has periodical and
>> publication racks on the floors of HRO and Radio Shack and
>> other stores to catch all eyes.
>
>Not really trying to change the subject, but I went to the local
>bookstore and two Radio Shacks trying to get a copy of the General
>Class Study manual. Both Radio Shacks said that they no longer carry
>the study guides. So, I opted to download the questions and answers
>from the net for free and give that a shot.
Good way to go! All it cost was some time in downloading.
>Did two Radio Shack managers lie to me? Has anyone seen the ARRL
>study guides? I didn't even see any of the "Now Your's Talking" books
>at the local stores.
Okay on those points, Bob, I agree with you. It's good
that you reminded me of the differences in location and,
perhaps, my "urban thinking." Just to get organized, I
started thinking about "radio parts" from my perspective:
I've lived in a large urban location for 50 years, one
that was once a center of aerospace technology, now
slowly lessening as more corporations opt out for
lower-taxation states. Lockheed Aircraft was one of
the first biggies to go, leaving behind a HUGE production
area that was razed and rebuilt as an enormous
shopping center (I never worked for Lockheed).
Hughes Aircraft (electronics, Hughes Tool Co. built
aircraft...) got gobbled up by larger corporations and
morphed, retaining only the logo. As a result of all that
growth and change in aerospace and electronics there is
a huge electronic-hobbyist interest around my neck of the
woods. Some of that is in amateur radio and "six-land"
has a very large population of licensed amateurs. With
all that hobby activity going on there are a large number
of retail outlets, chains and independents alike, within
relatively easy driving distance. This area is one large
incorporated city with several smaller incorporated cities
and 80+ suburbs all interconnected with streets, not
roads. Area population is somewhere in the neighborhood
of 8 million (give or take).
I don't go out to "radio stores" often. There was an HRO
outlet in a mini-mall across the major intersection where
my wife and I shop for food regularly. That HRO moved to
another part of Burbank late last year. I haven't been in
the new location but would expect it to be the same as in
the previous site and in the Van Nuys location it had been
before that. Right next to it (in the mini-mall) is a
small Radio Shack that I would go to only for replacement
watch batteries or buy some inexpensive gifts for non-
radio friends. There are two other Radio Shack outlets
in Burbank that I know of, one long-situated corner store
in its "downtown" and another in the three-story indoor
Mall less than a mile from it. Within 5 miles driving
are at least a half dozen Radio Shack stores...and about
four other electronics component stores that aren't
chained nationally...plus a couple of 'surplus' (civil,
not military) electronic outlests slightly farther away
and several telephone book pages of listings for outlets
within about 15 miles driving. For personal computers I've
got a choice of the totally awesome Fry's Electronics
consumer electronics supermarket in what was an old
Lockheed Aircraft building (they have at least 3 dozen
"checkout stands") 2 miles away and a PC Club store 3
miles away. Frys has an aisle of just components, maybe
heavy on computer-related parts but applicable to "radio"
as well. I mention that not to brag but just to describe
the local urban area where I live and have lived for 50
years.
Now, I CAN be accused of "not paying attention" to smaller
geographic locations in the USA and am "guilty" of not
"keeping up a running inventory" at each store. :-)
Mea culpa, mea culpa. But, I don't think that is a
terrible felony crime...certain others in here WILL! :-)
In rummaging through my memory, I recall that Radio
Shack had, in the past, carried ARRL publications. So
did the Electronic City store in Burbank, a store that was
there longer than I've lived in the neighboring L.A. suburb
of Sun Valley. Electronic City went to sound and video
equipment to suit the growing local business of film and
TV production, phasing out its amateur radio equipment
sales, emphasizing off-shore components suitable for all
kinds of non-radio hobby activities (those can be used
in ham radios since there isn't any difference in physics
despite the protestations of some amateur barracks
lawyers).
Yeah, I've confused the HRO contents of the old mini-mall
location with its former next-door neighbor, the little
Radio Shack store, I suppose. :-( Haven't taken inventory
in the other two RS outlets but have gotten some catalogs
at those; can't remember which one gave out the catalogs.
At that former HRO location I did buy an ARRL Handbook
on CD as a gift for a friend about four years ago (?). I can't
remember if Electronic City in Burbank still has a floor
rack of Amidon toroids since I wasn't looking for those
a year ago; Bill Amidon started that in Burbank, CA, years
ago. If I want toroid cores, powdered-iron or ferrite,
I either go to Dieter's "Kits and Parts" website, ordering
by e-mail, or (if a large quantity) directly to
Micrometals or Ferroxcube or one of their distributors.
I'm not a "casual week-end hobbyist" person but do a
mixture of actual paid-for-services work (professional
by definition) or very unpaid-for-except-by-me (amateur
by definition of monetary compensation). Just to keep from
running out to "radio stores" constantly, I keep a stock of
10% tolerance-vales but 5% real quarter-Watt resistors, 50
to 100 each, from 10 Ohms to 10 MegOhms. Those cost
me all of a couple pennies each from Allied, ordered on-line
when they had a special. I've ordered a 60 MHz 'scope and
triple-outlet, metered power supply from Circuit Specialists
by e-mail when they had a special sale on those. I can
and have ordered other electronic parts from Digi-Key,
Newark, Mouser, Ocean State (in Rhode Island) and
Jameco (in CA bay area), all by e-mail...other than Avnet
(for the 'business side' of this shop). As "John Smith I"
said in another thread, the Internet has become a part of
social fabric and I will vouch for it to be a part of
consumer commerce. My wife and I sort of tested that in
1999 by ordering an eastern king dual adjustable air-
mattress bed by e-mail. It was shipped from two
locations (Florida and California), assembled by us, and
still works just fine today. At half the price of retail store
cost...from stores we couldn't reach by car. No problems
in billing, purchase, or even traceable e-spam as a result
of that order. The amount of shopping one can do on-line
is enormous and, usually, worthwhile. Amazon, as an
example, sells much more than books...but some ARRL
publications can be ordered through them...at the same
prices as what ARRL charges on-line but, no shipping
charges on large purchases. :-)
I was born and raised in an Illinois city of about 50K,
now grown to about 180K in population. In 1948 it boasted
(yes, boasted then) of having TWO "radio parts stores,"
only one of which concerned amateur radio things. We've
been back there several times since but I've not gone
shopping for electronics any one of those times. I HAVE
noticed what Hans Brakob mentioned here several years
ago about the decrease of "ham radio outlets." I agree to
that, having seen the same thing. But, I'm not focussed
on just ham radio. I exist in more of the larger "radio"
world (actually electronics world, radio is a subset of
that). Yes, I'm guilty of not keeping EXACT track of
ARRL products. I've only heard about those for over a
half century...and keep hearing about them (described in
glowing terms) just about every day in here. :-)
I realize that small (relative) geographical locations
don't have as much of most anything as "big cities."
I really can't help that, but the PEOPLE in all areas
seem to have common personal desires and needs and the
marketplace actually RULES what is available where and
for how much. Sometimes we have to go "scrounging"
outside our local area to get what we want. The way I
see it the Internet has been a fantastic LEVELER for all
in that "scrounging." The local delivery shipping
companies help that along everywhere in the USA.
Shopping can start in one's computer and wind up with
the product right to one's front door.
Cheers,
LenAn...@ieee.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
On Jan 29, 3:32�pm, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> KH6HZ wrote:
> > "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>
> > In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>
> >> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
> >> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
> >> them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
> >> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
> >> back in demand.
>
> > Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.I disagree, Mike. Radio Shack had its roots in selling amateur
> equipment when it was a Boston firm decades back. When Tandy bought it,
> it in good shape. It swallowedAlliedElectronics back around 1970 and
> either closed or turned into Radio Shack stores, all of theAllied
> retail outlets. It owns and operatesAlliedElectronics as an
> industrial distributor. Right now the company is in search of itself.
Really? Wow, Allied is LYING to us!
I just pulled down the 2007 Allied catalog from the shelf, the one
that arrived at the end of last year. 2,192 pages, 8 1/2 x 11
format. It's about 2 13/16 inch thick. I looked at the corporate
address on the back page:
Allied
An Electrocomponents Company
7410 Pebble Drive
Fort Worth TX 76116
I've ordered from them via Internet. As a result I'm on their
"announcements" e-mail list. I remember Allied from its
beginning days in Chicago, IL. Back in 1956 they had a
large store there selling 1956-era electronic parts. Can't see
a thing about "Tandy" in that catalog.
I was unaware that they were once a "ham radio supplier."
All the time I thought they supplied parts to the electronics
industry. Thanks for clearing that up.
It's always a treat to hop in here and get the "real low-down"
from the ...
Oh, and that 2007 Allied catalog sits next to the Mouser 2006
catalog #628...almost as big in size and pages. Those two
sit next to the Jameco February 2007 catalog, not as big but
sure looks like it is going to be a very big distributor some day.
It's nice to see all those distributors have "found themselves."
Regardez,
LA
Dee Flint
"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...
It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so to
speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We have
2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
next decade or so before leveling out.
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
Not really. It says more about the fact that stores across the board have
little interest in serving the niche markets. Once upon a time, Radio Shack
did cater to hams. At that time not only were the hams fewer in number than
today but they were also a smaller percentage of the population than now.
At the time, Radio Shack did serve the niche market of hams (among others).
But time has marched on and most businesses can't serve the niche markets
cost effectively.
Ham radio isn't the only area where one must resort to the Internet to find
the products they want.
Dee, N8UZE
KH6HZ
> Perhaps when HRO has the floor space of Radio Shack, you might have
> a point.
HRO doesn't compete against Radio Shack in the same market. Radio Shack is
consumer goods, HRO sells in a niche market. Radio Shack is retail, HRO is
mainly mail order.
John Smith I
Bob Brock
And that was my point. If it reaches the stage where radio shack (or
Wal-Mart) has jumped on the band wagon, we may need to worry about
overpopulating the bands. As long as the only place to find equipment
is pretty much mail order to a "niche market," growth is good. BTW,
there was a time that Radio Shack targeted a "niche market." However,
those times are long past. IMO, their products were poorly made knock
offs of good equipment.
The other option is for the last ham to turn off the lights before he
dies out and the bands are sold to commercial interests.
Bob Brock
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> KH6HZ wrote:
>> > "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>
>> > In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> >> Right. adio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
>> >> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
>> >> them. ow, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
>> >> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
>> >> back in demand.
>>
>> > Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.I disagree, Mike. adio Shack had its roots in selling amateur
>> equipment when it was a Boston firm decades back. hen Tandy bought it,
>> it in good shape. t swallowedAlliedElectronics back around 1970 and
>> either closed or turned into Radio Shack stores, all of theAllied
>> retail outlets. t owns and operatesAlliedElectronics as an
>> industrial distributor. ight now the company is in search of itself.
>
> Really? Wow, Allied is LYING to us!
>
> I just pulled down the 2007 Allied catalog from the shelf, the one
> that arrived at the end of last year. 2,192 pages, 8 1/2 x 11
> format. It's about 2 13/16 inch thick. I looked at the corporate
> address on the back page:
>
> Allied
> An Electrocomponents Company
> 7410 Pebble Drive
> Fort Worth TX 76116
>
> I've ordered from them via Internet. As a result I'm on their
> "announcements" e-mail list. I remember Allied from its
> beginning days in Chicago, IL. Back in 1956 they had a
> large store there selling 1956-era electronic parts. Can't see
> a thing about "Tandy" in that catalog.
>
> I was unaware that they were once a "ham radio supplier."
> All the time I thought they supplied parts to the electronics
> industry. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> It's always a treat to hop in here and get the "real low-down"
> from the ...
Sometimes it's easier to just do a quick Google search and you find
things like this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Radio
Allied Radio would change ownership in 1970 when Radio Shack's parent
company (Tandy Corporation) bought both Allied Radio & Allied
Electronics. The retail division was merged with Tandy's retail unit
to become Allied Radio Shack, with the main office of both divisions
moving to Fort Worth, Texas. But as a result of the merger, many major
shopping centers would have two Allied Radio Shack stores competing
for the same dollars. As a result, the former Allied Radio storefronts
would fade away, with the former Radio Shack stores taking on both
product lines (and the expense of the extra inventory.) This was in
some ways a more difficult task as the original Radio Shack
storefronts were typically smaller than the Allied Radio stores.
By 1973 due directly to federal court action, Tandy was ordered to
divest itself of Allied Radio, but by that time with the purging of
duplicate stock and closing of low volume stores, there was very
little left to sell off, and the Tandy stores would once again bear
the Radio Shack name.
Since Tandy did not have a commercial-industrial supply division,
Allied Electronics would continue as a "Division of Tandy Corporation"
that served the manufacturing sector until the mid-1980s when it began
to change owners.
Dave Heil
Here you go from the company's web site, Leonard.
quote
Allied History
Over the years, Allied Electronics has built an enviable reputation as a
distributor of electronic components.
Since our conception in 1928, Allied’s main pursuit, and now our legacy,
has been providing excellence through customer service. Now, as part of
the Electrocomponents Group, Allied has added a global presence to our
customer orientation – the latest chapter in our fascinating, eight
decade history.
1928: Allied Radio was established as the radio parts distribution arm
of Columbia Radio Corporation. The company was soon to become one of the
most recognizable names in the electronics industry.
1932: The company built a growing business in marketing radio parts and
kits to home hobbyists, and was one of the first to sell electronics
through a catalog. In addition, Allied opened storefront distribution
outlets to reach more amateur ham radio operators and experimenters.
1941-45: Having survived the depression, Allied focused on the war
effort, primarily servicing government contracts and high-priority
industrial orders. Allied gained experience in the industrial arena for
the first time through government and military contracts, which laid the
groundwork for the distribution niche we occupy today.
1946-60: The electronics industry exploded as new developments in
electronics were adopted on a widespread basis in commerce and industry.
Innovations such as television, industrial automation, space technology
and defense accelerated the need for electronics. Consumer demand also
grew as radio sets and components not available during the war
proliferated. During this exciting era, Allied gained both the
experience and specialized staff necessary to handle both consumer and
industrial sales.
1962: The first industrial catalog for Allied Electronics, a subsidiary
of Allied Radio, was released. The company continued to serve both
amateur and professional ham radio operators as one of the few places to
locate that “hard to get” piece of radio equipment.
1970: Allied moved its headquarters from Chicago, Illinois to Fort
Worth, Texas.
1981: Allied began the process of moving from an all manual system to a
fully computerized company. The process was completed in 1985.
1995: Allied is the first electronics distribution company to come out
with a CD-ROM catalog and quickly followed-up by entering the e-commerce
arena with the launch of a web site.
1999: Allied Electronics acquired by Electrocomponents of the United
Kingdom.
2000 & Beyond: The combination of Allied's commitment to a high level of
customer service and Electrocomponents’ global reach delivers a very
powerful supply chain solution to meet future customer demands.
unquote
So, as you can see, Leonard, the company was sold by Tandy to an outfit
in the UK. There is still some tie to Radio Shack as there a link on
the site featuring the Radio Shack "RS" logo.
> I've ordered from them via Internet. As a result I'm on their
> "announcements" e-mail list.
You can't imagine how happy this news of yours makes me, Len. When I
was an outside salesman for the firm, it was owned by Tandy.
> I remember Allied from its
> beginning days in Chicago, IL.
You couldn't possibly remember as you can see from the company history.
> Back in 1956 they had a
> large store there selling 1956-era electronic parts. Can't see
> a thing about "Tandy" in that catalog.
Allied wasn't owned by Tandy in 1956. If you've been reading along,
Allied was acquired by Tandy in 1970.
> I was unaware that they were once a "ham radio supplier."
They sold *all* of it: Collins, Hallicrafters, Drake, Central
Electronics, Johnson, Ameco, Hammarlund, etc. My first amateur radio
equipment was bought from their used equipment list. Of course Allied
pushed their own "Knight" brand as well.
> All the time I thought they supplied parts to the electronics
> industry. Thanks for clearing that up.
They did that very well until Tandy took over. That began the downhill
slide for Allied.
> It's always a treat to hop in here and get the "real low-down"
> from the ...
It is evident that I knew more about the company than you. Always glad
to help fill in the gaps in your knowledge.
> Oh, and that 2007 Allied catalog sits next to the Mouser 2006
> catalog #628...almost as big in size and pages. Those two
> sit next to the Jameco February 2007 catalog, not as big but
> sure looks like it is going to be a very big distributor some day.
I'm pleased to hear of the very good organization of your catalog shelf.
My congratulations on your hard work.
> It's nice to see all those distributors have "found themselves."
Are you going to attempt lecturing me about the electronics distribution
business too, Len? It'll be just one more thing in which I've been a
participant and you have not.
> Regardez,
> LA
Dave K8MN
an old friend
On Jan 30, 12:14 am, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > It's nice to see all those distributors have "found themselves."Are you going to attempt lecturing me about the electronics distribution
> business too, Len? It'll be just one more thing in which I've been a
> participant and you have not.
>
> > Regardez,
> > LA
Dave K8MN- Hide
you are indeed a legend
in your mind I guess the DX must suck tonight
LenAn...@ieee.org
From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm
Bob, thanks for the "Wiki-up" on Allied, including Allied Radio.
If you haven't been here for years, you might not understand
how Heil's "game" is played. :-) Let me explain:
A long time ago, in a State department far away, Heil got
totally pissed with me in here for not going overboard
with gratuitous praise and congratulations on his mighty
efforts at hamming embassies in the middle of Africa.
Especially Guinea-Bisseau. Since then he's seen fit to
"correct" me as much as possible. Gotta love it when he
tries SO hard! :-) [he *IS* a code-tested extra and
thus very "superior"]
I am not interested in ALLIED (Radio or by the single name)
corporate history. I'm only interested in the parts they
sell, the price for those parts, and whether or not they
have them in stock. So much the better if the signs point
to them staying in business over a year from now. If not,
I look for another distributor that sells in small to large
quantities (there are many of them in the USA and Canada).
No sweat there.
I am well acquainted with "Allied Radio" and actually was
in there store in the second week of February, 1956, my
Dad with me (I had gone along with his meeting of some
model industry supers, then to Fort Sheridan to see if
my footlocker had arrived yet...it hadn't). Large store
interior but almost entirely displays of parts and some
instruments, which made me a bit disappointed in a way.
Expected more. I had ordered "radio parts" from them
in 1948 and then in 1954 while in the Army in Japan, had
always seen their ads in publications of that time. [I
built a thermin for a buddy in '54, he being a music
instructor in civilian life] Allied Radio catalogs were
very thin in those days, perhaps the thickest I remember
is around 3/8 inch. Yes, they has "radio parts" but
their market was mainly industry and the electronic
hobbies went beyond radio then. Chicago was "far away"
at 90 miles before I entered the Army. :-)
ALLIED's 2007 catalog is BIG at over 2000 pages. I'm not
going to look at "all" of them to see if "Tandy" is
mentioned despite Heil's insistence that 20-year-old
corporate history is SOOOOO important! :-) ALLIED is
very much IN BUSINESS and looks to stay that way for a
long time. By e-mail or by voice telephone the staff is
nice and obliging, on-the-job...no detectable Indian
accents. :-) I've gotten a few samples from Chicago
electronic companies shipped from ALLIED stock, believe
it or not. Good service.
A great problem with some olde-tyme hammes is that NONE
of the biggie electronics parts distributors stock much
HF "radio" parts that they expect. The parts market just
isn't there any more. Real radio parts are involved at
frequencies higher than HF. Those are in abundance.
Anyone who wants old-style HF "radio" parts has to go
to smaller mail outlets such as Ocean State Electronics.
But, they will be shocked by the high prices charged,
not at all as low as when they were adolescents.
The same with "plate and filament" transformers. About
the only outlet in North America for stock parts is a
Hammond division up in Canada (distributed by Mouser
down here). Fine products I hear, but the cost is high.
Electronics parts are, and have been for decades,
oriented to lower-voltage semiconductor technology.
What was once a provence of ham radio builders is now
much much larger in favor of computer-digital
components. Vacuum tubes (from new, old stock), if you
can get them, now cost five times what they did in 1960
and go up from there. The old days are GONE. They
won't come back as they once were.
Now, as to Heil, he doesn't know his chain gets yanked
and his buttons pushed by me. :-) That's part of my
game whenever he puts on the Waffen SS persona and tells
me "you never did such a thing!" or puts on the little
red hat while dancing to organ-grinder Miccolis' tune on
"corrections." It is both funny and tragic that they
carry on like they do, but that's their way in here.
Shrug...I've seen worse on BBSs after first doing
computer-modem comms 22 years ago. Usually I just shine
them off but the chain-yanking and button-pushing urge
gets irresistable and off we go. Poor Heil doesn't
realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Regards,
LenAn...@ieee.org
N2...@aol.com
On Jan 29, 1:02�pm, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:16 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>
> >In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>
> >> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
> >> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
> >> them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
> >> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
> >> back in demand.
>
> >Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.
>You must be going to the wrong Radio Shacks. I saw stereos and TV's
> all over the place when I went in.
But you didn't see computers, did you?
Once upon a time, RS was fairly big player in the consumer computer
market. But then they found it was too competitive a market, and they
could not compete with computer stores like CompUSA, MicroCenter,
etc. Now RS sells cables, adapters, disks, etc., but not computers.
> In theory, Radio Shack should be
> in a much better position to sell ham equipment than HRO provided they
> could sell it. If you don't believe in economy of scale, look at
> Wal-Mart and get back with me.
Right - and Wal-Mart doesn't sell ham gear.
The economy of scale situation in ham radio today is mail order/
internet sales, plus hamfest/conventions. because they're the most
competitive for most things. Some manufacturers sell don't sell
through dealers at all - Ten Tec and Elecraft are two examples.
In the bad old days, there were "radio parts stores" here in the
Philadelphia area. Plus we had mail order to Allied, Newark and
Lafayette. Today the parts stores are gone but the mail order is
bigger than ever: Allied and Newark are still around, plus Mouser and
Digi-Key.
btw, Digi-Key got its name because it started out as a tiny mailorder
business about 1968. They sold RTL logic chips to hams for Morse Code
keyers. QST, APril 1968. Then they added some popular transistors, and
sockets, and resistors....and the rest is history.
The radio parts stores existed, IMHO, because electronics weren't that
reliable back then - and they were expensive. TVs, radios, "hi-fis",
ham gear, etc., were usually fixed rather than discarded if they
stopped working, and those stores sold a steady stream of parts to
keep them working. There were also lots of hams and nonhams building
stuff from scratch to save money over buying, or to build things that
nobody manufactured.
All that has changed. Most consumer electronics is so reliable and
so inexpensive now that when it fails it is usually simply replaced.
Plus
the cost of labor often makes it uneconomical to fix a failed device.
In
fact, much of it is replaced *before* it fails. So the repair parts
business isn't what it was.
In most cases, you won't save money building electronic devices from
new parts *if* a similar item is manufactured by some company already,
because they get their parts in quantity and you don't. Any savings
come from using parts that are not bought new, and custom designs that
nobody manufactures.
The way to "sell" ham radio is simply to make it more visible to the
general public. The biggest barrier to that, IMHO, is anti-antenna
restrictions that are more common and more onerous every year.
How many of us first became aware of the existence of local amateurs
by seeing their antennas?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Leo
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm
>
>>On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, "LenAn...@ieee.org" wrote:
>>>On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> KH6HZ wrote:
>>>> > "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>snip
> Poor Heil doesn't
> realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
> control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
must be fought!
For some reason, these guys just don't get it. This personality type
seems to be compelled to respond to every 'poke and jab', quite
predictably, time after time. It is a classic response to stimulus,
right out of your old Psych 101 textbook......If there is, as the old
adage goes, "a sucker born every minute", they seem to have a long
lifespan.
It is a lot of fun to crank them up and watch them go, though - must
say, I've done it a time or two myself!
OK, OK, more than two.... :)
>
> Regards,
> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
73, Leo
Bob Brock
>
>
>On Jan 29, 1:02?pm, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:16 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
>> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>
>> >In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> >> Right. adio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
>> >> it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
>> >> them. ow, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
>> >> HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
>> >> back in demand.
>>
>> >Radio Shack cannot compete with big discount houses like HRO.
>
>>You must be going to the wrong Radio Shacks. saw stereos and TV's
>> all over the place when I went in.
>
>But you didn't see computers, did you?
>
>Once upon a time, RS was fairly big player in the consumer computer
>market. But then they found it was too competitive a market, and they
>could not compete with computer stores like CompUSA, MicroCenter,
>etc. Now RS sells cables, adapters, disks, etc., but not computers.
http://www.radioshack.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=2032356&cp=2032061
>
>> n theory, Radio Shack should be
>> in a much better position to sell ham equipment than HRO provided they
>> could sell it. f you don't believe in economy of scale, look at
>> Wal-Mart and get back with me.
>
>Right - and Wal-Mart doesn't sell ham gear.
>
>The economy of scale situation in ham radio today is mail order/
>internet sales, plus hamfest/conventions. because they're the most
>competitive for most things. Some manufacturers sell don't sell
>through dealers at all - Ten Tec and Elecraft are two examples.
Don't confuse lack of customers with economy of scale. Those little
guys can't compete with the big boys any better than the local shops
can compete with Wal-Mart.
I see that, in certain instances, you do understand economy of scale.
Why you reject other identical instances is a mystery to me.
>
>The way to "sell" ham radio is simply to make it more visible to the
>general public. The biggest barrier to that, IMHO, is anti-antenna
>restrictions that are more common and more onerous every year.
>
>How many of us first became aware of the existence of local amateurs
>by seeing their antennas?
I wouldn't know since that doesn't apply to me. I became interested
in ham radio and SWL when I met the guy who came out to replace some
tubes in my Grandfather's TV. Back then most commercial radio was AM
and you could listen to stations from all over late at night on a
regular radio. The guy gave me a used short wave radio and I've been
hooked ever since.
That was a long time ago though and the new generations have different
motivators. I think that one of the biggest motivators is the stigma
of current CB operations and that a lot of people don't recognize the
difference between the two.
Bob Brock
wrote:
>That was a long time ago though and the new generations have different
>motivators. I think that one of the biggest motivators is the stigma
>of current CB operations and that a lot of people don't recognize the
>difference between the two.
Oops. I meant to type de motivators instead of "motivators."
an old friend
On Jan 30, 9:11 am, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2007 02:14:40 -0800, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>.I see that, in certain instances, you do understand economy of scale.
> Why you reject other identical instances is a mystery to me.
at the risk of making what might seem a apersonal attack he rejects
anything that does not suit his ends as he has for the 8 years I have
particpated in the NG
Dave Heil
>
> Bob, thanks for the "Wiki-up" on Allied, including Allied Radio.
>
> If you haven't been here for years, you might not understand
> how Heil's "game" is played. :-) Let me explain:
There was no game, Leonard. I supplied you factual information.
Your response was something about Allied lying.
> A long time ago, in a State department far away, Heil got
> totally pissed with me in here for not going overboard
> with gratuitous praise and congratulations on his mighty
> efforts at hamming embassies in the middle of Africa.
[deliberate factual errors]
> Especially Guinea-Bisseau.
"Guinea-Bissau", Len, but not especially.
> Since then he's seen fit to
> "correct" me as much as possible. Gotta love it when he
> tries SO hard! :-)
...and succeeds so often. :-)
> [he *IS* a code-tested extra and thus very "superior"]
In amateur radio, Len, every licensed op is superior to you. You aren't
involved.
> I am not interested in ALLIED (Radio or by the single name)
> corporate history. I'm only interested in the parts they
> sell, the price for those parts, and whether or not they
> have them in stock.
You seemed extremely interested just a post or two back. You were, you
stated, around for the company's birth.
> So much the better if the signs point
> to them staying in business over a year from now. If not,
> I look for another distributor that sells in small to large
> quantities (there are many of them in the USA and Canada).
> No sweat there.
No one indicated that you should sweat, Len. I happened to be commenting
on Radio Shack and Tandy's acquisition and takeover of the Allied in
1970. You felt the need to come in with keyboard blazing.
> I am well acquainted with "Allied Radio" and actually was
> in there store in the second week of February, 1956, my
> Dad with me (I had gone along with his meeting of some
> model industry supers, then to Fort Sheridan to see if
> my footlocker had arrived yet...it hadn't). Large store
> interior but almost entirely displays of parts and some
> instruments, which made me a bit disappointed in a way.
> Expected more. I had ordered "radio parts" from them
> in 1948 and then in 1954 while in the Army in Japan, had
> always seen their ads in publications of that time. [I
> built a thermin for a buddy in '54, he being a music
> instructor in civilian life] Allied Radio catalogs were
> very thin in those days, perhaps the thickest I remember
> is around 3/8 inch. Yes, they has "radio parts" but
> their market was mainly industry and the electronic
> hobbies went beyond radio then. Chicago was "far away"
> at 90 miles before I entered the Army. :-)
That's a nice story, Len. Almost all electronic distributors of that
day also sold amateur radio equipment and, in that time, almost no one
discounted any of it.
> ALLIED's 2007 catalog is BIG at over 2000 pages. I'm not
> going to look at "all" of them to see if "Tandy" is
> mentioned despite Heil's insistence that 20-year-old
> corporate history is SOOOOO important! :-)
You didn't need to look. I provided you with a quote from the company's
history and Bob provided you with a Wikipedia link and post info from
that site. I never stressed any importance of the company history. You
didn't like it that you were wrong. Deal with it. You're often wrong.
> ALLIED is
> very much IN BUSINESS and looks to stay that way for a
> long time. By e-mail or by voice telephone the staff is
> nice and obliging, on-the-job...no detectable Indian
> accents. :-) I've gotten a few samples from Chicago
> electronic companies shipped from ALLIED stock, believe
> it or not. Good service.
I'm very happy for you, Len.
>
> A great problem with some olde-tyme hammes is that NONE
> of the biggie electronics parts distributors stock much
> HF "radio" parts that they expect. The parts market just
> isn't there any more. Real radio parts are involved at
> frequencies higher than HF. Those are in abundance.
> Anyone who wants old-style HF "radio" parts has to go
> to smaller mail outlets such as Ocean State Electronics.
> But, they will be shocked by the high prices charged,
> not at all as low as when they were adolescents.
One can go to a tiny place like RF Parts Company and find lots of HF
radio parts, even high power components and transmitting tubes of all
varieties for amplifiers.
> The same with "plate and filament" transformers. About
> the only outlet in North America for stock parts is a
> Hammond division up in Canada (distributed by Mouser
> down here).
Hammond is distributed by many distributors.
> Fine products I hear, but the cost is high.
Hammond makes very high quality products and the cost is not high at
all. The company also produces a quality line of die cast boxes of
almost any size.
> Electronics parts are, and have been for decades,
> oriented to lower-voltage semiconductor technology.
That's true to an extent. There is still a sizable market for high
power RF components in commercial radio, industry and amateur radio.
> What was once a provence of ham radio builders is now
> much much larger in favor of computer-digital
> components.
"Province", Len. There are still numerous manufacturers of radio
equipment which require radio components.
> Vacuum tubes (from new, old stock), if you
> can get them, now cost five times what they did in 1960
> and go up from there.
There are still numerous vacuum tubes produced by Russian, Chinese and
U.S. makers. I'm glad that they only cost five times what they did in
1960. Many things I buy today cost ten or more times what I would have
paid in 1960. Have you bought a pack of chewing gum or a rib-eye steak
lately?
> The old days are GONE. They
> won't come back as they once were.
That's right, Len. There's no long a Johnson Messenger vacuum tube CB
radio being made.
> Now, as to Heil, he doesn't know his chain gets yanked
> and his buttons pushed by me. :-)
Oh, you're a regular puppet master, Len. You're the great and powerful
Wizard of Odds.
> That's part of my
> game whenever he puts on the Waffen SS persona and tells
> me "you never did such a thing!" or puts on the little
> red hat while dancing to organ-grinder Miccolis' tune on
> "corrections."
I have to ask Len: How did you come up with the fiendishly clever part
of your scheme in which you end up looking so foolish?
> It is both funny and tragic that they
> carry on like they do, but that's their way in here.
Actually, Len, you have it slightly wrong. You carry on like you do and
wonder why folks don't take to your nonsense.
> Shrug...I've seen worse on BBSs after first doing
> computer-modem comms 22 years ago. Usually I just shine
> them off but the chain-yanking and button-pushing urge
> gets irresistable and off we go. Poor Heil doesn't
> realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
> control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
I musta been hIp-No-tiZeD! The funny part is where you put both of your
brogans into your yap in your sidewalk superintendent persona. I found
a Shinola ad in an old magazine the other day, Len. I think I'll scan
it and provide a link to the ad. It'll be a reminder of one of the
things you don't know.
> Regards,
> LenAn...@ieee.org
See IEEE Code of Ethics
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> But you didn't see computers, did you?
>
> Once upon a time, RS was fairly big player in the consumer computer
> market. But then they found it was too competitive a market, and they
> could not compete with computer stores like CompUSA, MicroCenter,
> etc. Now RS sells cables, adapters, disks, etc., but not computers.
RadShack stuff is simply way overpriced. I can buy cables and adapters
for much cheaper at Staples or Circuit City. I happened to stop at one
of our area Radio Shack stores two days ago to grab some chassis mount
female F connectors for a receiving antenna transformer housing I'm
building. I could have bought five or six of the things at even Lowe's
for the same price that RadShack sells two units. I notice a 20 pack of
DVD's for $7.99 Staples has a 25 pack for $3.99.
>
> The economy of scale situation in ham radio today is mail order/
> internet sales, plus hamfest/conventions. because they're the most
> competitive for most things. Some manufacturers sell don't sell
> through dealers at all - Ten Tec and Elecraft are two examples.
Exactly. I think Elecraft has always done so. Ten-Tec made the move a
decade or so back and it hasn't hurt the company a bit.
> In the bad old days, there were "radio parts stores" here in the
> Philadelphia area. Plus we had mail order to Allied, Newark and
> Lafayette. Today the parts stores are gone but the mail order is
> bigger than ever: Allied and Newark are still around, plus Mouser and
> Digi-Key.
Cincy used to have Allied, Lafayette and Olson stores along with area
distributors. Ham gear was sold at an appliance store, Steinberg's
until the end of 1968. The city also had Coston's, a dealer in amateur
radio gear. Queen City Electronics sold ham gear exclusively until
upstart R&L, a discounter in Hamilton became so lare that it put Queen
City under.
> btw, Digi-Key got its name because it started out as a tiny mailorder
> business about 1968. They sold RTL logic chips to hams for Morse Code
> keyers. QST, APril 1968. Then they added some popular transistors, and
> sockets, and resistors....and the rest is history.
The company has never forgotten its roots either. There are no minimum
quantities and no minimum order.
> The way to "sell" ham radio is simply to make it more visible to the
> general public. The biggest barrier to that, IMHO, is anti-antenna
> restrictions that are more common and more onerous every year.
You're right about the selling. In these parts, the antenna
restrictions are few and far between. When N8NN and I have done our
two-man FD efforts, we always manage to get a blurb about our operation
and Field Day in the local paper. We stress that the public is invited.
Our county ARES group does the same and holds its FD at a county park.
> How many of us first became aware of the existence of local amateurs
> by seeing their antennas?
I suppose that happens often. I actually heard a local ham on the air
before I noticed an antenna.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "LenAn...@ieee.org"
> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm
>>
>>> On 29 Jan 2007 16:44:02 -0800, "LenAn...@ieee.org" wrote:
>>>> On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> KH6HZ wrote:
>>>>>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>>>>> In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>> snip
>
>> Poor Heil doesn't
>> realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
>> control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
>
> Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
> on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
> point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
> continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
> daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
> must be fought!
You're a selective reader, "Leo". Good old Mr. Wilson, er Len saw my
post about Tandy/Radio Shack gobbling up Allied electronics and had to
attempt to dazzle me with his expertise. A lengthy treatise including
his having been around when Allied came into existence followed.
Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> On 30 Jan 2007 02:14:40 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 1:02?pm, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:16 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
>>>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>>> In response to "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net>:
>> The economy of scale situation in ham radio today is mail order/
>> internet sales, plus hamfest/conventions. because they're the most
>> competitive for most things. Some manufacturers sell don't sell
>> through dealers at all - Ten Tec and Elecraft are two examples.
>
> Don't confuse lack of customers with economy of scale. Those little
> guys can't compete with the big boys any better than the local shops
> can compete with Wal-Mart.
The little guys can and do compete. They do it by offering service that
the big boys don't and by offering items that the big boys don't carry.
What you mean is that they can't compete on price alone.
Dave K8MN
robert casey
> you'll find the sales people woefully short on product knowledge.
That's been the case for as long as I can remember, since the 70's. The
term "sales droid" was coined with Radio Shack in mind.
> the moment, RadShack is like a cellular phone store which pushes batteries.
>
"Whatever you wanted, we have a cell phone for you!"
> When Radio Shack made a decision to push amateur radio gear ten or
> fifteen years back, it did so mostly with Radio Shack branded equipment
> which was short on features and rather shoddily made. It pushed a few
> 2m and 70cm FM HT's and mobile transceivers and a few niche market rigs
> like the low power 10m transceivers. The sales people were, again,
> woefully short on product knowledge.
>
Their 2m hand held was actually decent. I have one. Not as rugged as
an old Motorola HT220, though. User interface wasn't that great, but
the Icom IC-02AT was worse. The radio Shack rig did had an excellent
tight band receiver front end. Less intermod issues.
KH6HZ
> I disagree, Mike. Radio Shack had its roots in selling amateur equipment
> when it was a Boston firm decades back.
[...]
> If Radio decided to sell a wide variety of amateur radio equipment of
> assorted brands and it gave adequate sales training to
> its staff, it'd be a big player.
I honestly doubt it.
Ham gear is such a niche market, it isn't cost effective for Radio Shack to
offer it at the individual store level. The per-capita number of hams simply
doesn't make it viable. There's little reason to carry a $1000+ product
(say, a decent HF radio) when you *might* sell 1 a year, if you're lucky.
Sure, in some markets, where there is a densely populated ham concentration,
Radio Shack may do good. Or, perhaps offering products mail-order they might
do okay.
Would they be able to compete with Yaesu, Kenwood, et al with their own
product line? Again, I doubt it. Will they be able to compete price-wise
with the large mail-order discount places? Again, I seriously doubt it, due
to the overhead requirements of each store.
It is my honest opinion that ham gear at the retail level is all but
extinct.
73
kh6hz
KH6HZ
> And that was my point. If it reaches the stage where radio shack
> (or Wal-Mart) has jumped on the band wagon, we may need to worry
> about overpopulating the bands.
I just simply do not see it happening. Most RatShacks are too small to carry
a wide range of ham gear. Furthermore, the per-capita number of hams in most
areas is too small.
Certain RatShacks may do ok selling ham gear, but as a whole? I doubt it.
Heck, how much demand is there for RatShack's selling of FRS and CB Gear?
Not very much, I believe, based on the very limited (if any) selection I've
seen in the 4 stores I've frequented over the past few years.
73
kh6hz
Dave Heil
>
>> you'll find the sales people woefully short on product knowledge.
>
> That's been the case for as long as I can remember, since the 70's. The
> term "sales droid" was coined with Radio Shack in mind.
When Cincinnati had one Radio Shack store, the store manager actually
knew something about parts that he carried. The folks in the Lafayette,
Allied and Olson stores had a number of people who were knowledgeable.
A couple of the electronic distributors I worked for had product
managers who knew several lines inside and out. They also hired inside
telephone sales people and counter people who were very knowledgeable
about components. At one of them, the sales manager, two of the outside
salesmen, three of the four inside sales people and two of the counter
men were hams.
>> the moment, RadShack is like a cellular phone store which pushes
>> batteries.
>>
> "Whatever you wanted, we have a cell phone for you!"
Yep. The time before my last trip, I went in for wire wrap #30 wire.
It is great for winding impedance matching transformers on binocular
ferrite cores--much better than enamel wire. The salesman told me that
he didn't think they carried it. I went to the wall and grabbed it.
He then attempted to interest me in a cell phone. When I told him that
I wasn't interested, he began offering batteries.
This last trip was for the F connectors. Again I received a pitch on
cell phones and batteries.
>> When Radio Shack made a decision to push amateur radio gear ten or
>> fifteen years back, it did so mostly with Radio Shack branded equipment
>> which was short on features and rather shoddily made. It pushed a few
>> 2m and 70cm FM HT's and mobile transceivers and a few niche market
>> rigs like the low power 10m transceivers. The sales people were,
>> again, woefully short on product knowledge.
>>
>
> Their 2m hand held was actually decent. I have one. Not as rugged as
> an old Motorola HT220, though. User interface wasn't that great, but
> the Icom IC-02AT was worse. The radio Shack rig did had an excellent
> tight band receiver front end. Less intermod issues.
You're correct. The 2m mobile rigs were not as good as the one hand
held transceiver. RadShack also carried a number of brand name 2m and
70cm antennas along with Radio Shack branded antennas. The fact
remained that if one went into a Radio Shack store with questions about
any of the amateur radio equipment, it was highly unlikely to find a
single sales person who had 1) the right answer or 2) any answer other
than "I don't know". I contrast that to the guys at Circuit City stores
I've visited. The sales people seem to have had good product
knowledge training.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> "Dave Heil" <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I disagree, Mike. Radio Shack had its roots in selling amateur equipment
>> when it was a Boston firm decades back.
> [...]
>> If Radio decided to sell a wide variety of amateur radio equipment of
>> assorted brands and it gave adequate sales training to
>> its staff, it'd be a big player.
>
> I honestly doubt it.
There's a way for Radio Shack to put the "radio" back in its name.
Right now it is a company in need of a purpose. If it doesn't change,
it is going to disappear or be reincarnated as a bunch of battery and
cellular phone kiosks in malls.
> Ham gear is such a niche market, it isn't cost effective for Radio Shack to
> offer it at the individual store level. The per-capita number of hams simply
> doesn't make it viable. There's little reason to carry a $1000+ product
> (say, a decent HF radio) when you *might* sell 1 a year, if you're lucky.
Right. Read on for a way to accomplish it.
> Sure, in some markets, where there is a densely populated ham concentration,
> Radio Shack may do good. Or, perhaps offering products mail-order they might
> do okay.
The company has the ability to do both. What it lacks is management
with the will and vision to set it up and a good training program for
salespeople. RadShack would do well to hire hams as sales people.
>
> Would they be able to compete with Yaesu, Kenwood, et al with their own
> product line? Again, I doubt it.
They don't have to. All they'd need do is offer those brands. They
could include some RadShack brand items if they chose to.
> Will they be able to compete price-wise
> with the large mail-order discount places? Again, I seriously doubt it, due
> to the overhead requirements of each store.
That's not right, Mike. R&L Electronics started out thirty years back
in a garage full of shelving. The owners, Rita & Larry, began it as a
sideline business while Larry was working full time as a machinist.
It then moved to a small location in the middle of downtown Hamilton,
Ohio. After a number of years, R&L relocated again to an old
supermarket the size of an average IGA store. That's where it is still
located. R&L *is* one of the big players. It is stuffed with
equipment, runs full page QST and CQ ads and meets or beats the prices
of HRO or AES. It does this with the one rather small store.
>
> It is my honest opinion that ham gear at the retail level is all but
> extinct.
In my earlier comments, I mentioned the Radio Shack might designate one
store in a given market area for carrying amateur radio equipment.
That'd be the way they could become a player. It would only need folks
with product knowledge and stock at those particular stores. The
employees of other RadShack outlets would only need know enough to point
potential customers to that store.
Ham gear at the retail level is what *everybody* is doing. The stores
themselves buy at the wholesale level from the manufacturers. We radio
amateurs are the retail customers.
Dave K8MN
Leo
wrote:
I'd tend to agree, "Dave", if this was an isolated post that was
hijacked by mean 'ol Len.
It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
I'll bet you don't!
>
>Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
He sure is!
>
>Dave K8MN
73, Leo
Dave Heil
Silly ol' Len leapt in with keyboard blazing. Silly ol' Len needed to
exhibit his expertise on matters dealing with Allied Electronics. The
only problem he had is that was short on information.
By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.
> It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
behavior, "Leo".
> I'll bet you don't!
>
>> Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
>
> He sure is!
Not.
Dave K8MN
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On 29 Jan 2007 23:08:00 -0800, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" wrote:
>>From: Bob Brock on Mon, Jan 29 2007 11:10 pm
>>>>On Jan 29, 3:32?pm, Dave Heil <k...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>> KH6HZ wrote:
>>>>> > "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>> Poor Heil doesn't
>> realize he's been controlled every time he tries to
>> control others! :-) Gotta love it...! :-)
>
>Right on. Jim and I had a long, long thread going quite some time ago
>on this very subject ("Owned or free...", IIRC) whereby I attempted to
>point this very fact out to him. And still, many months later, he
>continues to correct, proclaim and argue, often in multiple posts
>daily. Regardless of how quixiotic this pursuit is, the good fight
>must be fought!
Think "Rocky Balboa" as their "role-model" in their heads.
[note the geographic nearness of Philadelphia... :-) ]
The fanstasy syndrome is, unfortunately, endemic to the
human psyche. PR folks earn their living capitalizing
on that. CELEBRITES become paragons of just about anything
due to PR work. The "audience" confuses the CHARACTER
(on-screen) with the real person portraying the character.
I am waiting for the first HAM-ACTOR to be featured in
QST...how will the League portray him or her? :-)
On computer screens the fantasy syndrome can easily "take
over" and the God of Radio (in here) is formed, complete
with cliques of like-minded "gods" proclaiming "their"
greatness, expertise, and "better than the 'inferiors'
(not of their clique)." The problem for the group as a
whole is that once "IN" that fantasy, their egos refuse
to let them admit any wrong-doing...they were "always
right" and everyone else disagreeing with them "always
wrong." Case in point is Cranky Spanky and his constant
"corrections" on minutae, word play (everything "must" be
"factual" and "absolutely standard"), history of radio
(that he could never have experienced personaly).
Ya know (almost paraphrasing 'John Smith I'), after almost
two dozen years of computer-modem communications, I'm
beginning to wonder if I have seen all the possible
basic types...all I see is small variations, sub-sub-
genres of basic conditions. The variations vary with the
general topic (supposedly) but it all boils down to EGO
and "credentialism" and something akin to "the divine
right of kings" (to RULE). In a hobby activity. ?
>For some reason, these guys just don't get it. This personality type
>seems to be compelled to respond to every 'poke and jab', quite
>predictably, time after time. It is a classic response to stimulus,
>right out of your old Psych 101 textbook......If there is, as the old
>adage goes, "a sucker born every minute", they seem to have a long
>lifespan.
Not always that long. Two regulars in here, high code-
rate tested and Titled as "amateur extras" have passed
on. Haven't heard of any no-code-test advocates going
beyond the ionosphere. They were adamant to their end
on the "necessary skills" etc., etc., etc.
Some of the gods-of-radio clique have gotten clever in
what they consider dialogue. Cranky is really good at
the IMPLIED expertise question-challenge: "Len, you
don't know all of my education" or "Len, you don't know
all the experience I've had with other modes" for two
examples. Yes, I don't and Yes, I don't give a shit.
What one writes and HOW they write it are the "tell" if
anyone has the experience or desire to do something...
which lets me know whether anyone really cares to talk
about a project or activity. I could care less if their
"friends and neighbors" come over to applaud and praise
their hobby things. :-) Even a "frankenbox" kluge will
look high-tech and mysterious to someone not involved
with electronics. <shrug> I've known that for a long
time and don't make it a point to point to "wondrous
works" out of my workshop. I do that stuff because I
like to to it for me, not "my friends and neighbors" or
to earn "credentials" or to tack a (misused) "honours"
label of a callsign after my name.
Back a while ago we had a friendly little discussion on
the old Icom R-70 communications receiver. Cranky and
der Robust Oberst had to butt in and attempt to change
the subject, apparently on their ever-present need to
show me I'm such a newbie, a "nothing" in "radio." :-)
I've never claimed that R-70 to be "best in the world"
or anything else but reliable. Did a full work-up on it
last year and it still meets Icom's stated specs for
performance. <shrug> Those specs were state-of-the-
art two decades ago and still are. Heh heh heh...I can
turn them on just by mentioning I "paid cash" for it.
I did. I earned every penny of that "cash" by working
for a living (in regular hours then). I'm still trying
to decipher WHY earning a living is such a "moral flaw"
to them in regards to radio. :-)
>It is a lot of fun to crank them up and watch them go, though - must
>say, I've done it a time or two myself!
>
>OK, OK, more than two.... :)
No sweat to me. :-) Been there, done that, got so
many T-shirts...etc.
I'm still expressing (internal) wonder at Herr Oberst
and his moral felony charges of NOT GETTING A HAM
LICENSE *FIRST*. And, AFTER ALL THIS TIME! Wow! It's
practically a charge of "treason!" This "Joe McCarthy"
of the newsgroup is really Captain Oblivious to what I've
said about my actual interest in RADIO. Not amateur
radio but ALL radio. I think it marvelous and got INTO
my career because of a fortuitous exposure to big time
HF comms when I was young and serving my country in the
Army. NO! NOT CORRECT! NOT PROPER! MORAL FLAW OF
CHARACTER NOT TO WORSHIP, LOVE, HONOR MORSE CODE!
Sigh. Between Cranky and der Oberst they must have
denuded whole forests to collect wood in attempting
to burn me at the stake for such RELIGIOUS HERESY! :-)
[not "environmentally conscious" are they?]
Ahem, on 23 Feb 07 comes the beginning of the Great
USA Radio Depression, the END OF THE WORLD their
imagined little world of morsemanship! I can't wait
to hear what these paragons of pompous propriety
(amateur style) are going to say afterwards! Already
they've been "warning" me to GET A LICENSE! :-)
What, to sanctify my US First 'Phone that morphed
into a 'GROL' two decades ago and is still ON RECORD
at the FCC? [it is lifetime duration now] To
sanctify my work experience that began professionally
55 years ago? To sanctify my (short) 33-year
professional membership (now a Free Lifetime
membership) in the IEEE? Of course! To these
"extraordinary gentlemen" (of comic book fame), my
terrible treasonous moral impropriety was NOT
GETTING A HAM LICENSE *FIRST*!
Quick, call US HOMELAND SECURITY! Have me picked
up, arrested straightaway as an ENEMY OF THE STATE!
Gotta love it. They are more fun than a barrel of
red-hatted morse monkeys!
Come to think about it, they ARE the little red-hatted
morse monkeys dancing to the ARRL organ tunes! :-)
Stay warm up there and best regards,
LenAn...@ieee.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
>>On Jan 29, 1:02?pm, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:52:16 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
>>> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> writes:
>>The economy of scale situation in ham radio today is mail order/
>>internet sales, plus hamfest/conventions. because they're the most
>>competitive for most things. Some manufacturers sell don't sell
>>through dealers at all - Ten Tec and Elecraft are two examples.
>
>Don't confuse lack of customers with economy of scale. Those little
>guys can't compete with the big boys any better than the local shops
>can compete with Wal-Mart.
True enough. But, in contrast, my wife could have
bought her iRobot set from Sears. [Sears began in
Chicago, too...:-) ] But, iRobot sold a package of
Roomba and Scooba DIRECT for slightly less than what
Sears was charging.
Note: The iRobot products owe their workability to
solid-state ELECTRONICS, especially microprocessors.
Modern-day HF transceivers owe their workability to
solid-state ELECTRONICS, especially microprocessors.
Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Sears, J.C.Penney all sell
direct through the Internet. Nobody (except John
Smith I) seems to recognize the truly HUGE market
revolution brought on by the Internet. Amazon.com
did...[push, push]
>I see that, in certain instances, you do understand economy of scale.
>Why you reject other identical instances is a mystery to me.
We shall now pause while Cranky thinks up a proper
rationalization of how he is "always correct"... :-)
>>How many of us first became aware of the existence of local amateurs
>>by seeing their antennas?
>
>I wouldn't know since that doesn't apply to me. I became interested
>in ham radio and SWL when I met the guy who came out to replace some
>tubes in my Grandfather's TV. Back then most commercial radio was AM
>and you could listen to stations from all over late at night on a
>regular radio. The guy gave me a used short wave radio and I've been
>hooked ever since.
My first "interest" in radio was as a young teen-ager
building and flying model aircraft. I read about "radio
control" of them and thought that would be neat. One
of the adult model flyers in the club was a pre-WW2
amateur as well as a pro licensee in radio working for
the CAA. [was so long ago that it wouldn't be NASA
for a while and 'NOAA' didn't exist then...:-) ]
My $98 (retail) National NC-57 receiver was bought via
a $100 prize earned in competitive free-flight model
flying in Detroit, MI, in 1948. Still have the trophy
but the NC-57 has aged more than me...:-)
Everyone has a different episode of first-discovery but
it is proclaimed that only 'certain kinds' of discovery
are the 'only right-and-proper' ones. Ptui.
>That was a long time ago though and the new generations have different
>motivators. I think that one of the biggest [de]motivators is the stigma
>of current CB operations and that a lot of people don't recognize the
>difference between the two.
There I agree totally. "CB" came into being in 1958.
I was then a calibration technician at the Ramo-
Wooldridge Corporation Standards Lab in El Segundo, CA.
The lab supervisor was Ed Dodds (not sure of his call-
sign but could have been W6AFU or close to it, anyway
he was a pre-WW2 amateur and had a full Collins station).
Ed didn't think much of this "11-meter Charley Brown"
thing but he didn't despise it either. A lot of the
other olde-tymers at RW denounced it all over the place.
"HOW DARE THE FCC TAKE AWAY *OUR* 11-METER BAND?"
"HOW DARE THE FCC LET CIVILIANS ON HF RADIO WITHOUT A
CODE TEST or even a license test?!?" Blah, blah, blah,
etc. Oh, such a terrible thing!!! That was, as I see
it a time of the birthing of bigotry against CB that
remains in the later-generation amateur community.
No sweat to me. I put a Viking Messenger CB in my
aluminum-body '53 Austin-Healey in 1959 and had a lot
of fun with it. A lot of folks around here in LA did
similar, mobile or fixed. Fabulous "ground plane"
for a base-loaded short whip. Wasn't interested in
"DX." I liked the mobile communications thing, to be
able to talk to PEOPLE, not stations or callsigns.
That was the original intent of "CB," not the olde-
tyme hammature activity of "work DX on HF with CW."
Forty-nine years later the CB users outnumber hams
by at least six to one [I think the EIA quit trying
to take a measure of the number years ago]. It's a
standard item in the cab for highway truckers now.
I look to the right of my computer and see one of the
pair of Motorola FRS-GMRS handy-talkies that was
purchased at Fry's Electronics for less than $50 the
pair. My wife and I use it in and around the house.
I can close my hand around it. Rechargeable NiMH
batteries, AC dual charger part of the sales pack.
According to the 2003 FCC Panel on Unlicensed Radio
there were 15 million FRS radios sold back then.
I don't use "CB" mobile now, haven't since 1981.
A cell phone works just dandy for us on highways
now on one- and two-thousand mile drives cross-
country in the USA. But, according to the morse
mavens still flapping their worn wings prior to
15 Dec 06, I could ONLY be LEGALLY and MORALLY
"CORRECT" by passing a morse code test for an
amateur radio license!!! :-)
Regards,
LA
PS: The new Mouser Feb-Apr 2007 catalog 629 arrived
in today's (30 Jan 07) mail. 1,838 pages. 2 3/16"
thick at the spine. Good to know they are still
"discovering themselves." :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>> "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote in message
>>>> On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" wrote:
>> So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
>> is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way I
>> see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio
>> needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
>> start. However, it was only the beginning.
>
>It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so to
>speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
>one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We have
>2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
>thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
>of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
>leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
>level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
>next decade or so before leveling out.
Dee, I give you a standing ovation for admitting that!
At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
who admits what has been visible for years.
The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.
"Ham radio" needs to look at itself and its standards
very, very carefully.
The ARRL just doesn't have it to REALLY promote the hobby.
It hasn't had it for years. The ONLY promotion comes from
relatively-isolated (from League hierarchy) groups who have
actively pursued promotion themselves. ARRL's main
"interest" is promoting its (de facto) business of selling
publications. It IS a multi-million-annual-income
corporation despite what Believers say is "non-profit."
The League must CHANGE its political position. Radically.
Singing to the chorus of other amateurs about how good they
are is what the League leaders may want...but it is off-
putting to the majority. Either they show REAL leader-
ship as a membership organization and get with the
mainstream or just be a publisher of niche activities.
There really isn't much choice for them. They've resisted
and resisted and resisted BASIC changes to amateur radio
activity for years. As a result they've NOT increased
their membership by any worthwhile amount for years. The
largest amateur radio licensee class is Technician. It's
been that way for years...yet the League just shines off
that easily-observable fact.
Those who really and truly LIKE amateur radio MUST resist
the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
in amateurism at the same time they are looking down their
noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
shared by others, the mainstream. They MUST learn that
not all "newbies" MUST get into amateur radio as teen-
agers. They MUST learn that teen-agers have many MORE
diversions of very interesting activities AVAILABLE.
Not the latest fad interest or popular entertainment but
very real electronic activities that don't touch on
radio...or, if it does touch on radio, that radio is very
much more and farther from the traditional HF "short-
wave" in the real world. It is what IS, not what
individual olde-tymers want to preserve, that intangible
wonder of something shown to them long, long ago.
I don't have the answers, don't pretend to. But, I can
SEE what has happened, SEE cause-and-effect, and do not
PRETEND that "radio" has remained static since the first
olde-tymers "discovered" it.
I'm not an amateur. I'm a professinal in electronics.
Yet, I've been a hobbyist in electronics since before
most of you readers existed. I've seen the whole of
electronics ("radio" is a subset of that) CHANGE radically
in my lifetime. I've also seen that younger olde-tymers
bitterly resist change, change that they cannot control.
Those who resist change can alter the course of future
amateur radio by simply causing its stagnation and
eventual demise.
Too bad I'm on your "kill list." We might have had a
real conversation here on this. But, no, I have been
categorized as "inferior" or "unworthy" or, as one
put it in the past, "just horrid!" :-)
Regards,
LenAn...@ieee.org
Bob Brock
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1aKdnbQJaOmOJyPY...@comcast.com...> news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...
>>
>> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:G5KdnWeQjqLoQSDY...@comcast.com...>>> news:v22rr2h3ekp43h5mt...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "LenAn...@ieee.org"
>>>> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not at all, John, you be wrong there. ARRL has periodical and
>>>>> publication racks on the floors of HRO and Radio Shack and
>>>>> other stores to catch all eyes.
>>>>
>>>> Not really trying to change the subject, but I went to the local
>>>> bookstore and two Radio Shacks trying to get a copy of the General
>>>> Class Study manual. Both Radio Shacks said that they no longer carry
>>>> the study guides. So, I opted to download the questions and answers
>>>> from the net for free and give that a shot.
>>>>
>>>> Did two Radio Shack managers lie to me? Has anyone seen the ARRL
>>>> study guides? I didn't even see any of the "Now Your's Talking" books
>>>> at the local stores.
>>>
>>> Radio Shack has basically gotten out of amateur radio. I haven't seen
>>> any study guides there for a couple of years. Sometimes you can get
>>> them at Barnes & Noble but you have to special order. In that case one
>>> might as well order directly off the ARRL website.
>>>
>>> The Technician license manual is no longer called "Now You're Talking".
>>> I don't recall the new name.
>>
>> Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
>> radio is back in demand.
>>
>> ham is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way
>> I see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio
>> needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
>> start. However, it was only the beginning.
>>
>
> It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so
> to speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site
> is one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We
> have 2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham
> per thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't
> a lot of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of
> their leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the
> current level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half
> over the next decade or so before leveling out.
You could be right. However, there wouldn't be anything wrong with looking
at the potential base of good people who could be interested in ham radio
and trying to figure out what aspects might motivate them in joining in the
hobby. Well, except that we are in the wrong ng to do that right here and
would need to start another thread in the appropriate ng instead. I guess
I'm questioning whether we should recruit hard or recruit smart? Perhaps
both wouldn't hurt anything.
However, to be honest with you and the others here, I've got a crisis going
on here right now. My wife had a brain tumor removed a little over a week
ago and we just found out tonight that the tumor was malignant. She lost
use of her left arm and leg during the operation and will require radiation
therapy after the physical therapy. I'll leave it up to those who are
already here to decide among yourselves if a discussion of the potential
base and what motivates them would be beneficial in the appropriate ng or
not.
Hey, it's better than holding on to old vendettas and it could give everyone
a chance to provide some thoughtful input since it should be pretty non
controversial. Give it a thought and do what you will. I'll post as time
permits, but things are going to get really busy here for the next few
months. I was wanting to study and take the General exam, but that too will
take a back burner right now.
Take care all and I'll post when time permits.
Bob
Leo
wrote:
That was of paramount importance - many future generations of usenet
Googlers will pay homage to you for pointing that out to all with such
elegance and aplomb!
Hear, hear!
>
>By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.
"We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)
>
>> It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
>
>Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
>behavior, "Leo".
You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
posts!
>
>> I'll bet you don't!
>>
>>> Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
>>
>> He sure is!
>
>Not.
Whatever you think, "Daves"!
>
>Dave K8MN
73, Leo
N2...@aol.com
wrote:
> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
> >> "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote in message
> >>>> On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" wrote:
> >> So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
> >> is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way I
> >> see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio
> >> needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
> >> start. However, it was only the beginning.
>
> >It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so to
> >speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
> >one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We have
> >2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
> >thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
> >of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
> >leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
> >level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
> >next decade or so before leveling out.
>
>
> At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
> who admits what has been visible for years.
>
> The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.
Which old paradigms, Len?
What should the old paradigms be replaced with?
> "Ham radio" needs to look at itself and its standards
> very, very carefully.
Agreed.
Which standards should be changed?
>
> The ARRL just doesn't have it to REALLY promote the hobby.
> It hasn't had it for years.
What would you have them do that is not being done now?
> The ONLY promotion comes from
> relatively-isolated (from League hierarchy) groups who have
> actively pursued promotion themselves.
Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?
One of the most visible promotions of amateur radio is Field Day.
Every
club Field Day I have seen in the past 20+ years has made a point of
setting up in a public place, handing out literature, getting
themselves in the local papers and sometimes on TV.
Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.
> ARRL's main
> "interest" is promoting its (de facto) business of selling
> publications. It IS a multi-million-annual-income
> corporation despite what Believers say is "non-profit."
The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.
> The League must CHANGE its political position. Radically.
Why?
And how should it change?
> Singing to the chorus of other amateurs about how good they
> are is what the League leaders may want...but it is off-
> putting to the majority. Either they show REAL leader-
> ship as a membership organization and get with the
> mainstream or just be a publisher of niche activities.
What would constitute "REAL leadership"?
Who was it that led the fight against BPL?
> There really isn't much choice for them. They've resisted
> and resisted and resisted BASIC changes to amateur radio
> activity for years.
Which changes?
> As a result they've NOT increased
> their membership by any worthwhile amount for years. The
> largest amateur radio licensee class is Technician. It's
> been that way for years...yet the League just shines off
> that easily-observable fact.
I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
articles aimed at Technicians.
> Those who really and truly LIKE amateur radio MUST resist
> the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
> "superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
> in amateurism at the same time they are looking down their
> noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
> and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
> shared by others, the mainstream.
Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?
What should the standards be?
> They MUST learn that
> not all "newbies" MUST get into amateur radio as teen-
> agers. They MUST learn that teen-agers have many MORE
> diversions of very interesting activities AVAILABLE.
> Not the latest fad interest or popular entertainment but
> very real electronic activities that don't touch on
> radio...or, if it does touch on radio, that radio is very
> much more and farther from the traditional HF "short-
> wave" in the real world. It is what IS, not what
> individual olde-tymers want to preserve, that intangible
> wonder of something shown to them long, long ago.
US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
of
the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
resources
of adults.
>
> I don't have the answers, don't pretend to.
You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.
> But, I can
> SEE what has happened, SEE cause-and-effect, and do not
> PRETEND that "radio" has remained static since the first
> olde-tymers "discovered" it.
Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
causation.
For example, the repeater boom of the late 1970s-mid-1990s brought a
lot
of people into amateur radio who were looking for a personal radio
communications
service. They were looking for a radio service that was better behaved
and more reliable than cb, for local/regional personal communications.
The Technician license was their ticket, and became even more popular
when its written test was simplified (1987) and lost its Morse Code
test (1991).
We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
all but disappeared.
Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
growth in US amateur radio.
> I'm not an amateur. I'm a professinal in electronics.
> Yet, I've been a hobbyist in electronics since before
> most of you readers existed. I've seen the whole of
> electronics ("radio" is a subset of that) CHANGE radically
> in my lifetime.
Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:
"MUST resist the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
.....at the same time they are looking down their
noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
shared by others, the mainstream."
> I've also seen that younger olde-tymers
> bitterly resist change, change that they cannot control.
Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
changes?
For example, the traditional single-family detached house used to be
the
"standard" home that most Americans wanted to buy. It was considered
the most desirable.
But in recent decades, alternative home forms have become popular,
such as condominiums, homes with in-law suites, etc. More and more
American homeowners do
not own a single-family detached house. The old paradigms don't work
for them,
Yet some people bitterly resist the zoning changes that would
accomodate the new
era of real estate.
See the parallels?
> Those who resist change can alter the course of future
> amateur radio by simply causing its stagnation and
> eventual demise.
Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
needed, why should it be supported?
> Too bad I'm on your "kill list."
Len, it's a very safe bet that the reason you are on Dee's "kill list"
is because
of *your* behavior here. IMHO, Dee simply got tired of your name-
calling, various
forms of insult, and factual errors. She can correct me if I'm wrong -
but I don't think I am.
> We might have had a
> real conversation here on this.
Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation"
would
only last until Dee disagreed with you. It's a safe bet that at the
first real
challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama
Dee"),
and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.
> But, no, I have been
> categorized as "inferior" or "unworthy" or, as one
> put it in the past, "just horrid!" :-)
There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.
--
Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.
Jim, N2EY
Dave Heil
It seemed important enough for him to post his usual insulting crap,
"Leo". I'm sure that future generations will learn a great deal about
amateur radio from the misinformation and disinformation put forth by
Leonard H. Anderson.
> Hear, hear!
>> By the way, my name is Dave. We don't know that yours is Leo.
>
> "We"? The OCD was a bit obvious - there aren't multiple personalities
> in there too, are there? ("Daves"?)
There are other readers of the newsgroup who don't know you to be Leo,
"Leo". I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
at K8...@arrl.net and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
anonymously.
>>> It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
>> Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
>> behavior, "Leo".
>
> You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
> posts!
Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?
>>> I'll bet you don't!
>>>
>>>> Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
>>> He sure is!
>> Not.
>
> Whatever you think, "Daves"!
It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".
Dave K8MN
an old friend
> > Whatever you think, "Daves"!
>
> It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
> that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".
strange the you fail to comprehnd one of the basic princples of
moderen science
that you can not be both the obeserver and the obeserved it is
impossible thus you dance adding notes of course and does Len and leo
together you call the tune
>
> Dave K8MN- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Leo
wrote:
Kind of you to step up and speak for them all, "Daves".
> I am Dave and my amateur radio callsign is K8MN. Drop me a line
>at K8...@arrl.net and see who responds, "Leo". You're still sniping
>anonymously.
Odd that you would consider this interchange "sniping" - if I agreed
with you, would it become a "conversation"? Sure would!
And no, the definition of anonymous is "having no known name " -
mine's Leo! Whether you believe that or not is completely irrelevant
to me.
Should I prefer to communicate with K8MN, I would use the ham bands to
do so (where your callsign, and mine, are both relevant and required
by law). But you're not there - you're here! Usenet ain't radio, OM.
>
>>>> It isn't, though - is it? See a pattern?
>>> Isolated post? It doesn't matter to Len. I have seen a pattern in his
>>> behavior, "Leo".
>>
>> You certainly have - every time you post a follow up to one of Len's
>> posts!
>
>Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
>misinformation?
I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!
Now there's a pattern if I ever saw one.......
>
>>>> I'll bet you don't!
>>>>
>>>>> Yessir, Len's a regular puppeteer.
>>>> He sure is!
>>> Not.
>>
>> Whatever you think, "Daves"!
>
>It certainly appears that the puppet master is doing the dancing and
>that the supposed puppets are calling the tune, "Leo".
Whatever you say, "Daves" - you're obviously in complete control! :)
>
>Dave K8MN
73, Leo
Dee Flint
>
> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1aKdnbQJaOmOJyPY...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>> news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...
[snip]
>>
>> It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so
>> to speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site
>> is one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We
>> have 2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham
>> per thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just
>> aren't a lot of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a
>> part of their leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to
>> stay at the current level. It would not surprise me if our numbers
>> dropped in half over the next decade or so before leveling out.
>
> You could be right. However, there wouldn't be anything wrong with
> looking at the potential base of good people who could be interested in
> ham radio and trying to figure out what aspects might motivate them in
> joining in the hobby. Well, except that we are in the wrong ng to do that
> right here and would need to start another thread in the appropriate ng
> instead. I guess I'm questioning whether we should recruit hard or
> recruit smart? Perhaps both wouldn't hurt anything.
>
What we need to do is recruit OUTSIDE the newsgroups and let people know
that it exists and what they can do with it. People in the amateur radio
newsgroups are either already licensed or know something about ham radio.
It's the people who know little to nothing about it that we need to get the
word to so that they can decide if this is an activity that they want to get
involved in.
> However, to be honest with you and the others here, I've got a crisis
> going on here right now. My wife had a brain tumor removed a little over
> a week ago and we just found out tonight that the tumor was malignant.
> She lost use of her left arm and leg during the operation and will require
> radiation therapy after the physical therapy. I'll leave it up to those
> who are already here to decide among yourselves if a discussion of the
> potential base and what motivates them would be beneficial in the
> appropriate ng or not.
>
Good luck and best wishes.
> Hey, it's better than holding on to old vendettas and it could give
> everyone a chance to provide some thoughtful input since it should be
> pretty non controversial. Give it a thought and do what you will. I'll
> post as time permits, but things are going to get really busy here for the
> next few months. I was wanting to study and take the General exam, but
> that too will take a back burner right now.
>
Yup, family comes first.
Dee, N8UZE
Leo
>On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org>
>wrote:
>> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>> >> "Dee Flint" <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" wrote:
>>snip
>
>Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
>or
>respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
>The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
>the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
>callsign.
*tsk*. Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.
Poor guy. Just can't help himself!
>
>Jim, N2EY
73, Leo
N2...@aol.com
> >Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
> >misinformation?
>
> I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works
> on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!
That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
But you will not admit it.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Agreed.
Agreed to what?
>Which standards should be changed?
Which standard should never be changed?
>What would you have them do that is not being done now?
Why do you ask?
>Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?
Why do you ask?
>Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.
Why is that important?
Are you a farmer out-standing in his field?
Did you get a crop subsidy? Did you consider yourself
as growing something? Is that why you spread so much
fertilizer around?
>The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.
Why do you care?
Do you have stock in the ARRL?
Do you have any ARRL publications?
Why should we care whether or not you do?
>And how should it change?
How should what change?
Why can't you describe your question?
>What would constitute "REAL leadership"?
Why do you consider the ARRL as "leaders?"
Why does the ARRL consider themselves as the
"leaders?"
>Who was it that led the fight against BPL?
Did you not read the Comments on BPL at the
FCC website?
Why do you think ONLY ARRL 'fights against it?'
Why haven't you engaged your browser to look
around more?
Have you ever been engaged?
Have you ever browsed the singles groups?
>Which changes?
What are you talking about?
Do you ever change your underwear?
Haven't you ever changed your mind?
>I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
>aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
>other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
>articles aimed at Technicians.
Why aren't more Techs members of the ARRL?
Don't you realize that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined?
Why hasn't the ARRL gotten more than a quarter of
all amateur radio licensees as members?
>Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?
Are you still up the creek and out of the main stream?
>What should the standards be?
Shouldn't you ask NIST that?
>US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
>of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
>of the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
>resources of adults.
Is that why ARRL is always asking for some kind of donation?
>You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
>nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.
Why do you think all postings are made direct to you?
>Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
>claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
>causation.
Why haven't you cleaned up the static in your postings?
Have you cleaned up the static on your radio?
>We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
>beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
>inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
>all but disappeared.
Do you have your finger on the pulse of all radio-interested?
Are you A. C. Nielson? Or are you Leslie Nielson?
Are we to take your words as TRVTH engraved on a building?
Why can't we take your words as in a comic strip, "BC?"
>Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
>growth in US amateur radio.
Why can't you take the fact that so many just aren't
interested in morse code?
Why can't you understand that newcomers coming in via
no-code Tech classes are not quite able to keep up with
old coded hams who are dying off?
>Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:
Why do you say YOUR advice is "mine?"
Why do you act like only YOU are supreme judge of all?
Where is it written that only YOU know what is best?
>Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
>changes?
Is this an old folk homily? Is it an aphorism? Isn't it
more of your own apocryphal buzz-word-ism?
Why can't you accept FCC 06-178 with good grace.
Or do you always say "Good night grace?"
>Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
>can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
>needed, why should it be supported?
Why do you NOT understand what the FCC wrote in 06-178?
Why are you in such denial?
Have you sought psychologic help for your denial problem?
Have you gotten laid yet?
Do you floss after every meal?
>Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation" would
>only last until Dee disagreed with you.
Why do you call me by a familiar name? Why do you think
you have been authorized to do so?
Why do you continue the facade of seeing the future?
Are you a fake fortune teller? Do you read palms?
Have you ever run your hands along a woman's hand?
Have you ever held a conversation where you didn't try
to correct someone constantly?
Why do you think real conversations always involve you
asking questions?
>It's a safe bet that at the first real
>challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama Dee"),
>and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.
Why do you want to chastize others for things that have
not yet happened?
Why are you always making up stories about the future?
Do you have facts from the future?
Why do you consider yourself the ultimate authority?
Why are you imagining things?
>There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.
What is "all about me?"
Why do all your posts put you on the ultimate authority
throne?
Haven't you heard of Ex-Lax?
Have you ever had an endoscopy procedure?
Haven't you ever considered that others consider
your attitude as shitty?
>Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely, or
>respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
>The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
>the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
>callsign.
Why are you acting like a boss? Were you born in Red Bank, NJ?
Why must all answer your questions?
Are you Alex Trebek in drag?
Are you in or have you ever been in jeopardy?
Why do you always answer with other questions?
Why are you so irritable? Have you considered tranquilizers?
Haven't you gotten laid yet?
-30-
Leo
>On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo <nom...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> >Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
>> >misinformation?
>>
>> I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
>> on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!
>
>That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
>
>But you will not admit it.
Please demonstrate!
73, Leo
>
Dave Heil
"Leo" is a one-way street.
Dave K8MN
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he
certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs
>
>>
>>Jim, N2EY
>
>73, Leo
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo <nom...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
>>>> misinformation?
>>> I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. ?Works
>>> on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. ?Every time - without fail!
>>
>> That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
>>
>> But you will not admit it.
>
>"Leo" is a one-way street.
no Leo is name not a street Dave
>
>Dave K8MN
Bob Brock
If you guys want to sit here and say that there is no reason for hams
to discuss methods to recruit new hams here because the only people on
the newsgroups are the ones who recruit new hams, go ahead. I can't
make you. However, don't bemoan the lack of growth among the ranks.
What word is it that you want to get out? That you can talk to people
in foreign lands? That it is a good hobby for older people who are
shut in to be able to talk to new friends? That you can use it for
reliable communications with family and friends? How about the public
service aspects such as SKYWARN and ARIES? This is just a quick list
of things that I can think of because, as I already said, time is kind
of short for me right now and I think that brainstorming is a much
better method. That's why I suggested it.
What are the competitors to ham radio? GMRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
CB, etc.? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
each of these? Why would ham radio be a better choice.
Then you could discuss market demographics. What kind of people might
be interested in ham radio? How about hunters and fishermen who may
want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? Perhaps
people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
out in the field? How about emergency communications like being able
to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
car is broke down? This list too could be a lot longer.
Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
kinds of media do these people read? I can tell you right now, it's
not ham specific magazines such as QST. Ideas that come to mind,
based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
list servers that cater to their needs. Magazines that sell to
homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth. All kinds
of hunting and fishing magazines out there. There are a lot of media
outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
income. You could also look at organizations publications of specific
groups. This list too is abbreviated.
Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. The code
barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
time.
Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. People who
otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
that would meet a need. It's not only a good chance to promote ham
radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
little money from it. There are many here with excellent writing
skills who are capable of doing it.
The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
saturated and growth is impossible. To that, I say that marketing is
everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
towards those already in ham radio. It's a policy that I disagree
with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
alone as soon as time permits. However, that may be after the current
widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
passed and that would be truly unfortunate.
Leo
>On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:13:22 GMT, Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo <nom...@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
>>>>> misinformation?
>>>> I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. ?Works
>>>> on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. ?Every time - without fail!
>>>
>>> That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
>>>
>>> But you will not admit it.
>>
>>"Leo" is a one-way street.
>no Leo is name not a street Dave
"Daves" might be right this time. There's a Leo street in Montreal -
not sure if it's one way, though. I'll have a look next time I'm
there! :)
>>
>>Dave K8MN
>http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
73, Leo
N2...@aol.com
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:44:10 -0500, "Dee Flint"
>
>
>
>
>
> <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
> >news:1aXvh.13215$Cg1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
Then let's discuss ways of improving that growth.
>
> What word is it that you want to get out?
GOOD QUESTION!
>That you can talk to people
> in foreign lands? That it is a good hobby for older people who are
> shut in to be able to talk to new friends? That you can use it for
> reliable communications with family and friends? How about the public
> service aspects such as SKYWARN and ARIES? This is just a quick list
> of things that I can think of because, as I already said, time is kind
> of short for me right now and I think that brainstorming is a much
> better method. That's why I suggested it.
Here's my version:
1) Ham radio exists *today*
2) It's very different from other kinds of radio, such as cb, GMRS/
FRS, broadcasting, etc.
3) You can do a wide variety of things with ham radio, including some
that you can't do in other radio services. There are only a few things
you cannot do in ham radio (commercial operation, music.
broadcasting).
4) Ham radio operation requires FCC licensing. Getting a license
requires passing multiple choice tests and making an application to
FCC.
5) Ham radio is essentially "radio for its own sake" - an end in
itself more than a means to an end.
6) One word: FUN!
> What are the competitors to ham radio? GMRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
> CB, etc.? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
> each of these? Why would ham radio be a better choice.
I'd be careful with that one.
I think one of the main reasons for lack of growth over the past
several years has been that for a long time now ham radio has been
presented as a sort of "personal radio service", with emphasis on
radio as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The problem
with that approach is that as soon as a technology appears that also
serves that end, we lose out.
I think that amateur radio will continue to exist only if it
emphasizes how it is unique, rather than how it is similar to other
radio services.
>
> Then you could discuss market demographics. What kind of people might
> be interested in ham radio? How about hunters and fishermen who may
> want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? Perhaps
> people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
> farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
> out in the field? How about emergency communications like being able
> to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
> car is broke down? This list too could be a lot longer.
The problem is that most of what you describe is about radio as a
means to an end rather than radio for its own sake. FRS, GMRS, and
cell phones can already do most or all of what is written above.
The thing to point out is what amateur radio can do that other radio
services cannot:
- Wide variety of modes and bands
- Homebrew, kit or manufactured equipment, old to new technologies.
- Local, regional, national, international and even space
communications *without* dependence on commercial infrastructure.
- Competition (radiosport)
- Public service communications
- Emergency communications
> Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
> kinds of media do these people read? I can tell you right now, it's
> not ham specific magazines such as QST. Ideas that come to mind,
> based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
> list servers that cater to their needs. Magazines that sell to
> homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth. All kinds
> of hunting and fishing magazines out there. There are a lot of media
> outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
> income. You could also look at organizations publications of specific
> groups. This list too is abbreviated.
This is a very good point. Here are some more ideas:
- Ads/articles in boating, camping, RVing and flying magazines
- Highly visible amateur radio exhibits at air shows, town fairs,
parades, etc.
- Community-access cable TV and public radio/TV exposure
- Placement of amateur radio magazines, books and other material in
local schools, particularly middle schools.
> Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
> quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
> realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. The code
> barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
> to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
> time.
I don't think the Morse Code test is the "barrier" that it is often
said to be, but that's
soon to be a moot point.
I do think confusion between cb and Amateur Radio has really hurt
growth in Amateur Radio for many years.
I also think that complete ignorance, or gross misunderstanding, of
the *existence* of Amateur Radio is a continuing problem.
> Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
> write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
> describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. People who
> otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
> particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
> that would meet a need.
Perhaps - but that method emphasizes "means to an end".
I say the best selling point is that simply going on the air and
making contacts is a heck of a lot of fun. So is designing, building,
testing, fixing and repairing your own radio setup. That's what ham
radio is really all about, isn't it?
It's like trying to sell sailboats instead of motorboats by
emphasizing how a sailboat doesn't need lots of fuel the way a
motorboat does, and is only a bit slower than many motorboats. You may
sell a few sailboats that way, but it's not the best approach IMHO.
The way to sell sailboats is to sell the unique *experience* of
sailboating itself - how it makes you feel, how much fun it is, etc.
Sailing as an end in itself. Some people will "get it", most won't.
Of course most people's motivations to do something are a mix of the
practical and the emotional. So the ultimate goal is to appeal to both
of those, not just the practical.
> It's not only a good chance to promote ham
> radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
> little money from it. There are many here with excellent writing
> skills who are capable of doing it.
>
> The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
> saturated and growth is impossible. To that, I say that marketing is
> everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
> towards those already in ham radio. It's a policy that I disagree
> with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
> alone as soon as time permits. However, that may be after the current
> widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
> passed and that would be truly unfortunate
How something is sold is very important, though. If we sell amateur
radio only by what it can do for your personal communications needs,
we will always be at the mercy of the next technological improvement.
73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY
Dee Flint
You misunderstood. I did not say we should not talk about methods. I said
actually recruiting here is not going to help as those who don't know about
ham radio won't be here.
> What word is it that you want to get out? That you can talk to people
> in foreign lands? That it is a good hobby for older people who are
> shut in to be able to talk to new friends? That you can use it for
> reliable communications with family and friends? How about the public
> service aspects such as SKYWARN and ARIES? This is just a quick list
> of things that I can think of because, as I already said, time is kind
> of short for me right now and I think that brainstorming is a much
> better method. That's why I suggested it.
>
All these methods must be used as you never know what will pique some one's
interest.
> What are the competitors to ham radio? GMRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
> CB, etc.? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
> each of these? Why would ham radio be a better choice.
>
See above.
> Then you could discuss market demographics. What kind of people might
> be interested in ham radio? How about hunters and fishermen who may
> want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? Perhaps
> people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
> farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
> out in the field? How about emergency communications like being able
> to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
> car is broke down? This list too could be a lot longer.
>
See above. However, interest can come from any person. The particular uses
you list here however will be better served by other alternatives.
> Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
> kinds of media do these people read? I can tell you right now, it's
> not ham specific magazines such as QST.
That was my point. You've got to go "outside".
> Ideas that come to mind,
> based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
> list servers that cater to their needs. Magazines that sell to
> homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth. All kinds
> of hunting and fishing magazines out there. There are a lot of media
> outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
> income. You could also look at organizations publications of specific
> groups. This list too is abbreviated.
>
As far as magazines go, unless you want to pay for ad space, you've got to
find a way to tie it into an area of interest actually covered by the
magazine to try to get it published. I think this should be given a try
though.
> Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
> quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
> realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. The code
> barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
> to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
> time.
>
I agree with the CB idea but no one that I ran into even knew about the code
requirement. So I doubt that the latter was significant.
> Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
> write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
> describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. People who
> otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
> particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
> that would meet a need. It's not only a good chance to promote ham
> radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
> little money from it. There are many here with excellent writing
> skills who are capable of doing it.
>
> The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
> saturated and growth is impossible.
That's not necessarily fatalistic but something one must be aware of in
order to tailor their recruiting approach.
> To that, I say that marketing is
> everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
> towards those already in ham radio. It's a policy that I disagree
> with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
> alone as soon as time permits. However, that may be after the current
> widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
> passed and that would be truly unfortunate.
Market saturation is a fact that all retail manufacturer's face. And they
deal with it. This applies to everything from toasters to cars to TV
programming to any hobby you can name. For example, there's no growth in
the US toaster market. Each manufacturer works on keeping their market
share or growing their share. Similarly, we will have to show why our
activity deserves more of a person's free time than other activities.
I do agree that the "marketing" of our hobby does need to be much better
than it is. We need to seek out and find those that would be interested.
Those that perhaps lack interest only because they have not heard about it
or know very little about it.
Marketing the hobby is not the same as marketing the hardware or a specific
aspect of ham radio within the ham community. Current marketing is focusing
on the latter items. I hope you do get out and market our hobby. Many of
us do promote the hobby within our circle of family, friends, acquaintances,
co-workers, etc.
Dee, N8UZE
KH6HZ
> Market saturation is a fact that all retail manufacturer's face. And they
> deal with it.
Yes, with planned obsolescence.
Not exactly the same thing in ham radio, nor can we really deal with it the
same way.
73
kh6hz
Dee Flint
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
news:UjIwh.41$gJ1...@newsfe17.lga...
Although our approach will of necessity have to be different, we still must
face the equivalent of market saturation. Not everyone is going to be
interested in amateur radio no matter what we do and on top of that our
general population growth is very slow. These issues must be considered
when devising a strategy. Look at how many people believed and still
believe that Morse code kept people out. They think there is a huge number
of people just waiting in the wings chomping at the bit to become hams
without having to take a code test. I'll certainly be happy and excited if
that happens but let's say it doesn't (and I think it won't). What then
will people propose? Will they continue to ignore concepts like market
saturation as one potentially relevant issue? Will they continue to ignore
the concept that not everyone is interested in the types of things that
amateur radio can do?
We've probably got another several years until the "cell phone substitute"
hams are, for the most part, gone. That's several years still of decline.
With the relatively low cost of cell phones these days, we will get no more
recruits from this approach although we have kept a few that came in this
way.
The decline in CB enthusiasts is also reducing another potential source of
recruits.
This actually leads to the major reason for my little guessing game on the
growth of amateur radio without a code test. If my prediction is wrong and
we have a huge growth, I'll be happy and readily admit that I was wrong. If
the growth doesn't happen, perhaps people will wake up and realize that
changing requirements won't address the issue. Perhaps they will realize
that it is a recruitment and marketing issue rather than requirements.
Dee, N8UZE
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
>news:UjIwh.41$gJ1...@newsfe17.lga...
>> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Market saturation is a fact that all retail manufacturer's face. And they
>>> deal with it.
>>
>> Yes, with planned obsolescence.
>>
>> Not exactly the same thing in ham radio, nor can we really deal with it
>> the same way.
>>
>> 73
>> kh6hz
>
>Although our approach will of necessity have to be different, we still must
>face the equivalent of market saturation. Not everyone is going to be
>interested in amateur radio no matter what we do and on top of that our
>general population growth is very slow. These issues must be considered
>when devising a strategy.
> Look at how many people believed and still
>believe that Morse code kept people out.
only becuase it is true I have made many a ptich and had it die on
code testing
that is a fact DEE but you can't face it
> They think there is a huge number
>of people just waiting in the wings chomping at the bit to become hams
>without having to take a code test.
not exactly chmping Dee hta is a distortion of the NoCode postion by
the ProCoder
> I'll certainly be happy and excited if
>that happens but let's say it doesn't (and I think it won't). What then
>will people propose? Will they continue to ignore concepts like market
>saturation as one potentially relevant issue? Will they continue to ignore
>the concept that not everyone is interested in the types of things that
>amateur radio can do?
>
>We've probably got another several years until the "cell phone substitute"
>hams are, for the most part, gone. That's several years still of decline.
>With the relatively low cost of cell phones these days, we will get no more
>recruits from this approach although we have kept a few that came in this
>way.
>
>The decline in CB enthusiasts is also reducing another potential source of
>recruits.
>
>This actually leads to the major reason for my little guessing game on the
>growth of amateur radio without a code test. If my prediction is wrong and
>we have a huge growth, I'll be happy and readily admit that I was wrong. If
>the growth doesn't happen, perhaps people will wake up and realize that
>changing requirements won't address the issue. Perhaps they will realize
>that it is a recruitment and marketing issue rather than requirements.
>
>Dee, N8UZE
>
N2...@aol.com
> "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:UjIwh.41$gJ1...@newsfe17.lga...
>
>
> >> Market saturation is a fact that all retail manufacturer's face. And they
> >> deal with it.
>
> > Yes, with planned obsolescence.
>
> > Not exactly the same thing in ham radio, nor can we really deal with it
> > the same way.
>
> face the equivalent of market saturation.
Well, yes and no.
To use the toaster analogy, there's no growth in toaster sales because
almost everyone who wants or needs a toaster already has one or more.
The percentage of Americans who want toasting technology in their
homes is very large, too.
New toaster sales today are almost all either replacements for worn-
out old toasters, or to people setting up a new kitchen.
The key point is that there aren't large numbers of people out there
who don't know about toasters and who will step up and buy one or more
if modern toasting is presented to them in a positive way.
But with amateur radio, I think there are sizable numbers of people
who don't even know amateur radio exists, or who have very distorted
ideas about it. *Those* are the people we need to reach.
Of course many of them won't be interested, no matter what the license
requirements are, because "radio for its own sake" just doesn't
interest as many people as, say, whole wheat toast with butter and
marmalade.
> Not everyone is going to be
> interested in amateur radio no matter what we do and on top of that our
> general population growth is very slow.
I think the population growth is particularly slow in the demographics
that would be most interested in becoming hams, too.
All that means is that we need to get the word out.
> These issues must be considered
> when devising a strategy. Look at how many people believed and still
> believe that Morse code kept people out. They think there is a huge number
> of people just waiting in the wings chomping at the bit to become hams
> without having to take a code test.
Exactly.
If that were really true, the number of US hams by license class would
be as lopsided as it is in Japan. But it's not.
> I'll certainly be happy and excited if
> that happens
Me too!
> but let's say it doesn't (and I think it won't). What then
> will people propose?
Reducing the written tests, of course. In fact, that's already been
proposed by NCVEC (see their "Communicator" license idea, and the
paper "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century").
> Will they continue to ignore concepts like market
> saturation as one potentially relevant issue? Will they continue to ignore
> the concept that not everyone is interested in the types of things that
> amateur radio can do?
We will see in the next few months.
But remember that the resturcturing of 2000 did not result in longterm
growth.
> We've probably got another several years until the "cell phone substitute"
> hams are, for the most part, gone. That's several years still of decline.
> With the relatively low cost of cell phones these days, we will get no more
> recruits from this approach although we have kept a few that came in this
> way.
>
> The decline in CB enthusiasts is also reducing another potential source of
> recruits.
Yup.
Another factor is that many of the new hams of the 70s-'80s-'90s were
not young people when they started out. More than a few I know were
empty-nesters and retirees - and now they aren't with us anymore.
Also, it should be remembered that back in the supposed "golden age"
of amateur radio - whenever that supposedly was - there were not only
far fewer hams than today, but the number of hams per 1000 people was
far lower. Only in the past few years has the US population grown
faster than the US amateur population.
> This actually leads to the major reason for my little guessing game on the
> growth of amateur radio without a code test. If my prediction is wrong and
> we have a huge growth, I'll be happy and readily admit that I was wrong.
Same here. That's one reason I will continue to post the ARS license
numbers here twice a month. That way, anyone can go back through the
archives and see the long-term trends.
>If
> the growth doesn't happen, perhaps people will wake up and realize that
> changing requirements won't address the issue. Perhaps they will realize
> that it is a recruitment and marketing issue rather than requirements.
I agree!
But mark my words: there will be loud cries that the written tests
need to be reduced as well.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Cecil Moore
> But with amateur radio, I think there are sizable numbers of people
> who don't even know amateur radio exists, or who have very distorted
> ideas about it. *Those* are the people we need to reach.
Some of them work for the Madisonville Independent
School District here in Texas. Their web filters
block anything related to amateur radio as "entertainment".
When I try to access www.arrl.org, I get a message
saying it is blocked because it is "entertainment".
A school system that blocks anything associated
with amateur radio is in very sad shape.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
LenAn...@ieee.org
> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > But with amateur radio, I think there are sizable numbers of people
> > who don't even know amateur radio exists, or who have very distorted
> > ideas about it. *Those* are the people we need to reach.
>
> Some of them work for the Madisonville Independent
> School District here in Texas. Their web filters
> block anything related to amateur radio as "entertainment".
> saying it is blocked because it is "entertainment".
> A school system that blocks anything associated
> with amateur radio is in very sad shape.
> --
> 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Cecil, amateur radio is a national SERVICE!
Would you call the military "entertainment?"
Connect the dots.
Some dashes might be nice, too...
LA
Cecil Moore
> Cecil, amateur radio is a national SERVICE!
Yes, as in an "administrative division of government".
> Would you call the military "entertainment?"
No, it is also an "administrative division of government".
LenAn...@ieee.org
Hmmm...I just wrote four separate sentences. :-)
Are they related to one another? :-)
<tongue in cheek>
Bob Brock
<deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote in message
>news:b1i5s2t802v4jgc78...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:44:10 -0500, "Dee Flint"
>> <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1aXvh.13215$Cg1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1aKdnbQJaOmOJyPY...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market"
>>>>> so
>>>>> to speak.
>>>> You could be right.
>>>
>>>What we need to do is recruit OUTSIDE the newsgroups and let people know
>>>that it exists and what they can do with it.
>> If you guys want to sit here and say that there is no reason for hams
>> to discuss methods to recruit new hams here because the only people on
>> the newsgroups are the ones who recruit new hams, go ahead.
>You misunderstood. I did not say we should not talk about methods. I said
>actually recruiting here is not going to help as those who don't know about
>ham radio won't be here.
Agreed. It would be like recruiting in QST.
>> What word is it that you want to get out?
That ham radio is a very good option to evaluate when meeting a
specific groups needs. That it is relatively reliable, economical,
>All these methods must be used as you never know what will pique some one's
>interest.
>
>> What are the competitors to ham radio? GMRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
>> CB, etc.? What are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
>> each of these? Why would ham radio be a better choice.
>>
>
>See above.
>
>> Then you could discuss market demographics. What kind of people might
>> be interested in ham radio? How about hunters and fishermen who may
>> want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? Perhaps
>> people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
>> farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
>> out in the field? How about emergency communications like being able
>> to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
>> car is broke down? This list too could be a lot longer.
>>
>
>See above. However, interest can come from any person. The particular uses
>you list here however will be better served by other alternatives.
There we have to agree to disagree. I think that ham radio would be
beneficial to all of the groups that I mentioned. However, no one is
presenting the information to them so they don't think about it.
>> Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
>> kinds of media do these people read? I can tell you right now, it's
>> not ham specific magazines such as QST.
>
>That was my point. You've got to go "outside".
If you go back to my initial post, I think you would see that it was
my point to. However, this would be a good place to evaluate what you
are going to take outside.
>> Ideas that come to mind,
>> based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
>> list servers that cater to their needs. Magazines that sell to
>> homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth. All kinds
>> of hunting and fishing magazines out there. There are a lot of media
>> outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
>> income. You could also look at organizations publications of specific
>> groups. This list too is abbreviated.
>>
>
>As far as magazines go, unless you want to pay for ad space, you've got to
>find a way to tie it into an area of interest actually covered by the
>magazine to try to get it published. I think this should be given a try
>though.
Advertising would better be handled by an organization. I was
thinking about articles in the magazine. If the writer can't find a
"tie in" then it is apparent that you are looking at the wrong
demographic and need to find a media outlet that caters to another
demographic.
>> Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
>> quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
>> realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. The code
>> barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
>> to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
>> time.
>>
>
>I agree with the CB idea but no one that I ran into even knew about the code
>requirement. So I doubt that the latter was significant.
Then you have been talking to a very demographic from me. The ones
that I've talked into getting a Tech license were turned off by code.
Granted some of them are higher class licenses now. The CB stigma
would be hard to overcome though.
If the market is saturated at current levels, then we should face the
fact that ham radio is obsolete and as quaint as horse buggies. I'm
only using the manufacturing analogy because you did. Personally, I
see ham radio as a service and not a product. I see a lot of
households who don't have one and they don't have one because they
don't see a need for it that can't be met someway else.
>I do agree that the "marketing" of our hobby does need to be much better
>than it is. We need to seek out and find those that would be interested.
>Those that perhaps lack interest only because they have not heard about it
>or know very little about it.
>
>Marketing the hobby is not the same as marketing the hardware or a specific
>aspect of ham radio within the ham community. Current marketing is focusing
>on the latter items. I hope you do get out and market our hobby. Many of
>us do promote the hobby within our circle of family, friends, acquaintances,
>co-workers, etc.
Then you are marketing to what is pretty much a closed set. Don't get
me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that and it's what I would guess
most hams are doing. They are relying on organizations such as the
AARL to market for new members and the AARL isn't doing it. Hence,
what are already low numbers continue to drop.
Dee Flint
[snip]
>>Market saturation is a fact that all retail manufacturer's face. And they
>>deal with it. This applies to everything from toasters to cars to TV
>>programming to any hobby you can name. For example, there's no growth in
>>the US toaster market. Each manufacturer works on keeping their market
>>share or growing their share. Similarly, we will have to show why our
>>activity deserves more of a person's free time than other activities.
>
> If the market is saturated at current levels, then we should face the
> fact that ham radio is obsolete and as quaint as horse buggies. I'm
> only using the manufacturing analogy because you did. Personally, I
> see ham radio as a service and not a product. I see a lot of
> households who don't have one and they don't have one because they
> don't see a need for it that can't be met someway else.
>
Saturation does not equate to being obsolete. The market (toasters, TVs,
etc) for almost all current consumer goods has been saturated for decades.
The consumer buys for one of three reasons: 1) A person setting up their
own household for the first time; 2) The old one broke; 3) They just want a
new one.
The toaster market (a saturated market) stays pretty steady year after year
for the three reason listed. It does not grow (at least here in the US).
What I am saying with the marketing analogy is that there is an inherent
limit on the percentage of people that will be interested in ham radio. We
are probably close to that limit. Yes we can and will find prospective hams
by active recruiting. However, given it's limited appeal, finding those
people will merely enable us to maintain stability.
Actually, looking at other countries with well off populations, I would
suspect that we may drop from our current approximately 2 hams per thousand
people down to more like 1 ham per thousand people before we finally
stabilize. And we'll have to recruit diligently to stabilize even there.
Dee, N8UZE
Bob Brock
>On Feb 2, 1:29?am, Bob Brock <bbr...@i-americia.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:44:10 -0500, "Dee Flint"
>Then let's discuss ways of improving that growth.
>>
>> What word is it that you want to get out?
>
>GOOD QUESTION!
>
>>That you can talk to people
>> in foreign lands? hat it is a good hobby for older people who are
>> shut in to be able to talk to new friends? hat you can use it for
>> reliable communications with family and friends? ow about the public
>> service aspects such as SKYWARN and ARIES? his is just a quick list
>> of things that I can think of because, as I already said, time is kind
>> of short for me right now and I think that brainstorming is a much
>> better method. hat's why I suggested it.
>
>Here's my version:
>
>1) Ham radio exists *today*
>
>2) It's very different from other kinds of radio, such as cb, GMRS/
>FRS, broadcasting, etc.
>
>3) You can do a wide variety of things with ham radio, including some
>that you can't do in other radio services. There are only a few things
>you cannot do in ham radio (commercial operation, music.
>broadcasting).
>
>4) Ham radio operation requires FCC licensing. Getting a license
>requires passing multiple choice tests and making an application to
>FCC.
>
>5) Ham radio is essentially "radio for its own sake" - an end in
>itself more than a means to an end.
>
>6) One word: FUN!
That's a good list.
>
>> What are the competitors to ham radio? MRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
>> CB, etc.? hat are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
>> each of these? hy would ham radio be a better choice.
>
>I'd be careful with that one.
I can see comparative advantages for ham radio over all of the ones
that I mentioned.
>I think one of the main reasons for lack of growth over the past
>several years has been that for a long time now ham radio has been
>presented as a sort of "personal radio service", with emphasis on
>radio as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The problem
>with that approach is that as soon as a technology appears that also
>serves that end, we lose out.
I think that we lose out to inferior services and why we do that is
another thread altogether.
>I think that amateur radio will continue to exist only if it
>emphasizes how it is unique, rather than how it is similar to other
>radio services.
That ham radio is unique is a selling point. It offers benefits that
none of the others have to offer to certain demographics.
>>
>> Then you could discuss market demographics. hat kind of people might
>> be interested in ham radio? ow about hunters and fishermen who may
>> want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? erhaps
>> people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
>> farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
>> out in the field? ow about emergency communications like being able
>> to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
>> car is broke down? his list too could be a lot longer.
>
>The problem is that most of what you describe is about radio as a
>means to an end rather than radio for its own sake. FRS, GMRS, and
>cell phones can already do most or all of what is written above.
>
>The thing to point out is what amateur radio can do that other radio
>services cannot:
>
>- Wide variety of modes and bands
>- Homebrew, kit or manufactured equipment, old to new technologies.
>- Local, regional, national, international and even space
>communications *without* dependence on commercial infrastructure.
>- Competition (radiosport)
>- Public service communications
>- Emergency communications
Thank you. It's a good list.
>
>> Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
>> kinds of media do these people read? can tell you right now, it's
>> not ham specific magazines such as QST. deas that come to mind,
>> based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
>> list servers that cater to their needs.
>agazines that sell to
>> homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth.
ll kinds
>> of hunting and fishing magazines out there. here are a lot of media
>> outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
>> income. ou could also look at organizations publications of specific
>> groups. his list too is abbreviated.
>
>This is a very good point. Here are some more ideas:
>
>- Ads/articles in boating, camping, RVing and flying magazines
>- Highly visible amateur radio exhibits at air shows, town fairs,
>parades, etc.
>- Community-access cable TV and public radio/TV exposure
>- Placement of amateur radio magazines, books and other material in
>local schools, particularly middle schools.
Once again, a very good list and one that I agree with.
>
>> Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
>> quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
>> realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. he code
>> barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
>> to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
>> time.
>
>I don't think the Morse Code test is the "barrier" that it is often
>said to be, but that's
>soon to be a moot point.
The code/no-code thing is past us now. I agree that it's time to move
on to potentially productive discussions and get past hurt feelings in
the past. Of course, that's easy for me to say since I elected not to
participate during the battle.
>I do think confusion between cb and Amateur Radio has really hurt
>growth in Amateur Radio for many years.
Agreed again. This doesn't happen often.
>
>I also think that complete ignorance, or gross misunderstanding, of
>the *existence* of Amateur Radio is a continuing problem.
>
>> Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
>> write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
>> describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. eople who
>> otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
>> particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
>> that would meet a need.
>
>Perhaps - but that method emphasizes "means to an end".
>
>I say the best selling point is that simply going on the air and
>making contacts is a heck of a lot of fun. So is designing, building,
>testing, fixing and repairing your own radio setup. That's what ham
>radio is really all about, isn't it?
>
>It's like trying to sell sailboats instead of motorboats by
>emphasizing how a sailboat doesn't need lots of fuel the way a
>motorboat does, and is only a bit slower than many motorboats. You may
>sell a few sailboats that way, but it's not the best approach IMHO.
>
>The way to sell sailboats is to sell the unique *experience* of
>sailboating itself - how it makes you feel, how much fun it is, etc.
>Sailing as an end in itself. Some people will "get it", most won't.
>
>Of course most people's motivations to do something are a mix of the
>practical and the emotional. So the ultimate goal is to appeal to both
>of those, not just the practical.
Agreed and point taken.
>
>> It's not only a good chance to promote ham
>> radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
>> little money from it. here are many here with excellent writing
>> skills who are capable of doing it.
>>
>> The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
>> saturated and growth is impossible. o that, I say that marketing is
>> everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
>> towards those already in ham radio. t's a policy that I disagree
>> with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
>> alone as soon as time permits. owever, that may be after the current
>> widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
>> passed and that would be truly unfortunate
>
>How something is sold is very important, though. If we sell amateur
>radio only by what it can do for your personal communications needs,
>we will always be at the mercy of the next technological improvement.
Any technology is at the mercy of technological improvement. I think
that we are using one of ham radio's biggest competitors right now.
The only advantage of ham radio over the Internet is mobility and
price. Otherwise, anything you could imagine doing via radio can be
done here either via newsgroups or IRC.
However, that too is something better left to another thread.
Dee Flint
[snip]
>>Marketing the hobby is not the same as marketing the hardware or a
>>specific
>>aspect of ham radio within the ham community. Current marketing is
>>focusing
>>on the latter items. I hope you do get out and market our hobby. Many of
>>us do promote the hobby within our circle of family, friends,
>>acquaintances,
>>co-workers, etc.
>
> Then you are marketing to what is pretty much a closed set. Don't get
> me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that and it's what I would guess
> most hams are doing. They are relying on organizations such as the
> AARL to market for new members and the AARL isn't doing it. Hence,
> what are already low numbers continue to drop.
>
Our numbers per population are the second highest in the world so the
"already low numbers" is a fallacy. Only Japan has a higher percentage and
it is difficult to determine the validity of their numbers since they
license many people for life in grade school, many of whom are never active.
Comparing it to parts of Europe, they have 1 ham per thousand where we have
2 hams per thousand.
The grass roots approach could possibly be the most effective. I know
hunters, truckers, fishermen, farmers, etc. All of them know additional
people that I don't If I recruit two ACTIVE people, and they in turn
recruit two more each and so on, we would have explosive growth in amateur
radio. Remember tsunamis are generally initiated by a single event in a
single location.
Actually I don't view the ARRL as being responsible for marketing ham radio
and recruiting new people. I view them as a service to their members type
of thing. However it might not be a bad idea to suggest to them that they
set up a donation fund for placing ads in non ham magazines.
Dee, N8UZE
Bob Brock
<deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
Since I think that the percentage is much higher, I guess we will have
to agree to disagree. However, be warned that even if you are right,
I'll probably still think that it was the result of a self fulfilling
prophecy by the ham community at large.
Take care Dee. If we don't suffer another setback, my wife will be
coming home from the hospital within a week or so. When she does,
taking care of her and letting her know that I love her is gong to be
my main priority until she once again achieves independence. It's
going to be a 24/7 job for awhile.
I'm saying that so that, when I disappear, people don't think that I
got mad and took my bag of marbles home. It's just a matter of
priorities.
KH6HZ
> Although our approach will of necessity have to be different, we still
> must face the equivalent of market saturation. Not everyone is going to
> be interested in amateur radio no matter what we do and on top of that our
> general population growth is very slow. These issues must be considered
> when devising a strategy.
This is why I believe the way to "save" ham radio is "quality over
quantity".
You cannot "save" ham radio by throwing more bodies at it. You can only save
ham radio by making it such an essential service that the FCC dare not
eliminate it.
> Look at how many people believed and still believe that Morse code kept
> people out. They think there is a huge number of people just waiting in
> the wings chomping at the bit to become hams without having to take a code
> test. I'll certainly be happy and excited if that happens but let's say
> it doesn't (and I think it won't).
You and I both. Did you post your prediction for the "pool" (as to where ARS
licensing numbers will be in another year? I said -1 to 0% change.
While I'm sure there are *some* people who will get licensed now there is no
code test, I do not think it will result in any meaningful numbers added to
the service. I suspect what you will see are a rash of upgrades as Techs
obtain HF privs. I wouldn't be surprised if, for the first time in many
years, we actually saw a *decrease* in the number of licensed Techs (which,
at the moment, is the only growing license class sans the Extra class)
> What then will people propose?
Why... its those NASTY, pesky THEORY examinations that are holding people
away, naturally. After all, if all you want to do is talk to your buddy 2
streets over on the local repeater, why do you need to know stupid things
like radio wave propagation and antenna theory. All I do is call HRO, and my
antenna theory arrives pre-manufacturered in a box. Maybe rather than having
tests on RLC circuits we can have tests on the proper way to tighten hose
clamps.
> We've probably got another several years until the "cell phone substitute"
> hams are, for the most part, gone. That's several years still of decline.
> With the relatively low cost of cell phones these days, we will get no
> more recruits from this approach although we have kept a few that came in
> this way.
I think you'll bottom out in the mid 300k's and stay there.... Or, the rate
of decline will fall off rapidly but still continue, slowly, as the ARS
peters out into non-existance by the mid 2020's.
> The decline in CB enthusiasts is also reducing another potential source of
> recruits.
"Radio" simply isn't 'sexy' these days, with the internet, etc. Radio-based
"hobbies" are, for the most part, D-E-A-D.
We need another "Smokey and the Bandit" movie to glamourize CB/Ham radio
again.
> Perhaps they will realize that it is a recruitment and marketing issue
> rather than requirements.
Perhaps the ARRL should work with Yaesu, Kenwood, Cushcraft, etc. to arrange
for interested college clubs around the country to get free gear to set up a
station. Who knows.
73
kh6hz
Dee Flint
"KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote in message
> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> You and I both. Did you post your prediction for the "pool" (as to where
> ARS licensing numbers will be in another year? I said -1 to 0% change.
>
Yes, since it is my pool!
> While I'm sure there are *some* people who will get licensed now there is
> no code test, I do not think it will result in any meaningful numbers
> added to the service. I suspect what you will see are a rash of upgrades
> as Techs obtain HF privs. I wouldn't be surprised if, for the first time
> in many years, we actually saw a *decrease* in the number of licensed
> Techs (which, at the moment, is the only growing license class sans the
> Extra class)
>
>
>> What then will people propose?
>
> Why... its those NASTY, pesky THEORY examinations that are holding people
> away, naturally.
You do know that one definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same
thing (changing requirements) but expect different results!
Dee, N8UZE
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
by this deifination dee one could say YOU were insane yourself
N2...@aol.com
Thanks!
> >> What are the competitors to ham radio? MRS, FRS, MURS, cell phones,
> >> CB, etc.? hat are the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
> >> each of these? hy would ham radio be a better choice.
>
> >I'd be careful with that one.
>
> I can see comparative advantages for ham radio over all of the ones
> that I mentioned.
In some situations, yes. But in most situations, those other services
are preferred - *if* the only consideration is getting the
communications done.
For example, there was a time when auto-in-trouble (including
accident) calls to 911 were commonly done via amateur radio autopatch.
Today most of that is done by cell phones.
> >I think one of the main reasons for lack of growth over the past
> >several years has been that for a long time now ham radio has been
> >presented as a sort of "personal radio service", with emphasis on
> >radio as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. The problem
> >with that approach is that as soon as a technology appears that also
> >serves that end, we lose out.
>
> I think that we lose out to inferior services and why we do that is
> another thread altogether.
"Inferior services"? I say they are different, not inferior.
I think it's important to understand what we are actually trying to
"sell". Selling amateur radio as a personal-communications solution
isn't a good idea, IMHO.
> >I think that amateur radio will continue to exist only if it
> >emphasizes how it is unique, rather than how it is similar to other
> >radio services.
>
> That ham radio is unique is a selling point.
It's the main selling point, IMHO, and we need to always keep it in
mind.
> It offers benefits that
> none of the others have to offer to certain demographics.
Such as?
> >> Then you could discuss market demographics. hat kind of people might
> >> be interested in ham radio? ow about hunters and fishermen who may
> >> want to be able to talk back people who are out with them? erhaps
> >> people who are interested in off grid living and homesteaders? Perhaps
> >> farmers who want to be able to call back to the house when they are
> >> out in the field? ow about emergency communications like being able
> >> to either call home or get someone else to call home for you when your
> >> car is broke down? his list too could be a lot longer.
>
> >The problem is that most of what you describe is about radio as a
> >means to an end rather than radio for its own sake. FRS, GMRS, and
> >cell phones can already do most or all of what is written above.
>
> >The thing to point out is what amateur radio can do that other radio
> >services cannot:
>
> >- Wide variety of modes and bands
> >- Homebrew, kit or manufactured equipment, old to new technologies.
> >- Local, regional, national, international and even space
> >communications *without* dependence on commercial infrastructure.
> >- Competition (radiosport)
> >- Public service communications
> >- Emergency communications
>
> Thank you. It's a good list.
Thanks.
> >> Once you decide what the demographics are, you could look at what
> >> kinds of media do these people read? can tell you right now, it's
> >> not ham specific magazines such as QST. deas that come to mind,
> >> based on the list that I've provided are the various newsgroups and
> >> list servers that cater to their needs.
> >agazines that sell to
> >> homesteaders such as Countryside Magazine or Mother Earth.
> ll kinds
> >> of hunting and fishing magazines out there. here are a lot of media
> >> outlets tailored to older people and people on a tight budget/fixed
> >> income. ou could also look at organizations publications of specific
> >> groups. his list too is abbreviated.
>
> >This is a very good point. Here are some more ideas:
>
> >- Ads/articles in boating, camping, RVing and flying magazines
> >- Highly visible amateur radio exhibits at air shows, town fairs,
> >parades, etc.
> >- Community-access cable TV and public radio/TV exposure
> >- Placement of amateur radio magazines, books and other material in
> >local schools, particularly middle schools.
>
> Once again, a very good list and one that I agree with.
>
Thanks yet again.
>
> >> Two of the barriers to people getting a ham license that I run into
> >> quite a bit are the Morse Code requirement and a lot of people don't
> >> realize that there is a difference between ham and CB. he code
> >> barrier is gone and that is a good lead in as to why someone may want
> >> to consider ham radio even if they had dismissed it at an earlier
> >> time.
>
> >I don't think the Morse Code test is the "barrier" that it is often
> >said to be, but that's
> >soon to be a moot point.
>
> The code/no-code thing is past us now.
Almost! Three weeks.
> I agree that it's time to move
> on to potentially productive discussions and get past hurt feelings in
> the past. Of course, that's easy for me to say since I elected not to
> participate during the battle.
I think one major point to keep in mind is how much the code test was
supposedly limiting growth. We will soon see just how true that claim
really was.
> >I do think confusion between cb and Amateur Radio has really hurt
> >growth in Amateur Radio for many years.
>
> Agreed again. This doesn't happen often.
>
You mean agreement? I disagree ;-)
> >I also think that complete ignorance, or gross misunderstanding, of
> >the *existence* of Amateur Radio is a continuing problem.
>
> >> Then someone could look back over the various open discussions and
> >> write an article to be submitted to any of the various media
> >> describing the advantages of ham radio over other methods. eople who
> >> otherwise hadn't considered ham radio as an option for their
> >> particular needs may get a chance to see that it is indeed an option
> >> that would meet a need.
>
> >Perhaps - but that method emphasizes "means to an end".
>
> >I say the best selling point is that simply going on the air and
> >making contacts is a heck of a lot of fun. So is designing, building,
> >testing, fixing and repairing your own radio setup. That's what ham
> >radio is really all about, isn't it?
>
> >It's like trying to sell sailboats instead of motorboats by
> >emphasizing how a sailboat doesn't need lots of fuel the way a
> >motorboat does, and is only a bit slower than many motorboats. You may
> >sell a few sailboats that way, but it's not the best approach IMHO.
>
> >The way to sell sailboats is to sell the unique *experience* of
> >sailboating itself - how it makes you feel, how much fun it is, etc.
> >Sailing as an end in itself. Some people will "get it", most won't.
>
> >Of course most people's motivations to do something are a mix of the
> >practical and the emotional. So the ultimate goal is to appeal to both
> >of those, not just the practical.
>
> Agreed and point taken.
There are lots more. The invention of photography did not eliminate
drawing, sketching and painting. The invention of the motorcycle did
not eliminate the bicycle. Many homes still have fireplaces even
though they have modern, efficient heating systems.
> >> It's not only a good chance to promote ham
> >> radio in a media read by someone other than hams, you might make a
> >> little money from it. here are many here with excellent writing
> >> skills who are capable of doing it.
>
> >> The other option is to take a fatalistic viewpoint that the market is
> >> saturated and growth is impossible. o that, I say that marketing is
> >> everything and right now the vast majority of marketing is keyed
> >> towards those already in ham radio. t's a policy that I disagree
> >> with and if no one else wants to do it, it's something that I will do
> >> alone as soon as time permits. owever, that may be after the current
> >> widow of opportunity created by dropping the code requirement has
> >> passed and that would be truly unfortunate
>
> >How something is sold is very important, though. If we sell amateur
> >radio only by what it can do for your personal communications needs,
> >we will always be at the mercy of the next technological improvement.
>
> Any technology is at the mercy of technological improvement.
Yes and no.
The invention of fiberglass did not eliminate wooden sailboats.
> I think
> that we are using one of ham radio's biggest competitors right now.
The internet is only a competitor if you don't consider radio to be an
end in itself.
> The only advantage of ham radio over the Internet is mobility and
> price. Otherwise, anything you could imagine doing via radio can be
> done here either via newsgroups or IRC.
I disagree!
An internet-capable computer can be had for almost no cost. The
computer I am writing this on is a Dell Dimension XPS R400 - which
cost me nothing but the time to set it up and add a few pieces (CD
burner, soundcard) from other old computers. AOL with DSL costs less
than POTS.
That kinda eliminates price as an issue.
Mobility is served in most cases by a cell phone.
What amateur radio offers that the 'net and telephone don't is a
completely unique experience, and freedom from dependence on a
commercial infrastructure. That's not going to change with technology.
> However, that too is something better left to another thread.
Or this one.
Good luck with your family's health issues. I hope they are quickly
resolved in a good way.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Mike Coslo
news:1170286415....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org>
> wrote:
<previous post stuff snipped>
>> At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
>> who admits what has been visible for years.
>>
>> The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.
>
> Which old paradigms, Len?
>
> What should the old paradigms be replaced with?
Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle
Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads. They can either accept
the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars, perhaps
embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to reminisce about the
good old days when hems were really hams. Perhaps not much consolation
however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant.
My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter.
Too bad, that.
The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's
worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are
gone.
I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential.
What are you going to do?
- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
N2...@aol.com
> N...@AOL.COM wrote innews:1170286415....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org>
> > wrote:
>
> <previous post stuff snipped>
>
> >> At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
> >> who admits what has been visible for years.
>
> >> The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.
>
> > Which old paradigms, Len?
>
> > What should the old paradigms be replaced with?
>
> Element one is gone.
In three weeks, yes.
> The hams who fought code elimination for so many
> years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle
> Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads.
Do you think I am one of those you describe, Mike?
Have you ever seen me display hatred for *any* amateur radio operator
who follows the rules?
>They can either accept
> the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars, perhaps
> embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to reminisce about the
> good old days when hems were really hams.
There's nothing wrong with opposing a change that one thinks is not
a good idea. Of course there are good ways and bad ways of opposing a
change.
> Perhaps not much consolation
> however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant.
Why should any radio amateur be irrelevant?
> My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter.
> Too bad, that.
That works both ways.
>
> The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
> advance their technical skills and knowledge.
That's not a new paradigm at all. It's as old as amateur radio itself.
In fact, it's a very old, traditional paradigm.
Basically it says that amateur radio operators are not simply users of
radio appliances. IMHO.
> The days when a Ham's
> worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability > are gone.
Operating skills are still a major part of amateur radio - and what
hams should have and continue to develop. Whether or not they are
tested doesn't mean those skills are no longer relevant.
>
> I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential.
>
> What are you going to do?
Promote amateur radio - help other hams and wouldbe hams - enjoy
building, fixing, operating, teaching, and learning.
IOW, the same stuff I've been doing in amateur radio for almost 40
years.
No new paradigm at all.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dave Heil
>> wrote:
>
> <previous post stuff snipped>
>
>>> At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
>>> who admits what has been visible for years.
>>>
>>> The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.
>> Which old paradigms, Len?
>>
>> What should the old paradigms be replaced with?
>
> Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
> years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle
> Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads. They can either accept
> the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars, perhaps
> embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to reminisce about the
> good old days when hems were really hams. Perhaps not much consolation
> however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant.
How do they suddenly become irrelevant, Mike? If they gone on with
their lives, operate on the bands in the same manner they've operated
for years, if they check into nets, chase DX, operate in contests--where
does irrelevant become reality?
> My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter.
> Too bad, that.
What odd twist of fate leads you to your present state of gloom and doom?
> The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
> advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's
> worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are
> gone.
Please don't use the word "paradigm", Mike. It has bad ju-ju associated
with it. We don't "market the migration", "enter into a bold new
paradigm", "become proactive" or "think outside the box".
Hams have never ever been one dimensional, nor do all radio amateurs
march in lock step. Most of the hams I've known in over four decades in
amateur radio have more than one area of interest. Most pride
themselves on the sum of their skills, not in only a single one.
> I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential.
What new potential has now been offered that wasn't there last month?
> What are you going to do?
I'm planning to do what interests me.
Dave K8MN
KH6HZ
> Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
> years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams,
I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim.
Personally, I've never encountered it on the air. I've never looked up the
callsign of someone who has been licensed and made a decision not to
communicate with them on the basis of their callsign. Neither has any other
ham operator I'm aware of. In thousands of contacts I've had, and listened
to, I've never heard someone shunned on their basis of their license class,
or their lack of a morse code examination.
Oh, I'm sure there are some out there. I'm sure some ham operators out there
still believe in Santa Claus too. There are probably a few Gay Pagan
Dyslexic hams out there as well.
Should I characterize ham radio, or even "many" ham radio operators, on the
basis of those claims?
No.
73
kh6hz
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>"Mike Coslo" <mco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
>> years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams,
>
>I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim.
bullshit or at least then you have not read Robeson in RRAP
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo <nom...@noway.com> wrote:
> >On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "LenAnder...@ieee.org" <LenAnder...@ieee.org>
> >>>snip
>
> >>Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
> >>or
> >>respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
> >>The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
> >>the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
> >>callsign.
>
> >*tsk*. Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.
>
> >Poor guy. Just can't help himself!
>
> why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he
> certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs
Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain.
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
well isn't all use of his name in vain at least if the objective is
comuncation
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:11:36 -0500, "KH6HZ" <kh6...@Tarrl.net> wrote:
> >"Mike Coslo" <mco...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
> >> years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams,
>
> >I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim.
>
> bullshit or at least then you have not read Robeson in RRAP
Gunny Robesin, Wince Fiscus, Larry tRoll, Bruce Benyon, Dick Carrol/
SK, Val Germann, ...
LenAn...@ieee.org
Why not? He does. He's about as vain as any morse
monkey. :-)
[see dumpster diving for transceivers under $100 cost,
see "having friends and neighbors over to admire his
work," see stories of travail of teen-agers taking many
busses to reach a very official FCC Field office, etc.]
beep, beep
LA
Dave Heil
You're still a horse's patoot, Leonard.
Dave K8MN