----------
> From: Larry L. Ravlin <sheepdip@continet.com>
> To: Andy Wallace <andywallace@home.com>; Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net>
> Cc: CW Reflector <cw@qth.net>; 'AMPS' <amps@contesting.com>; Gilmer, Mike
<mgilmer@gnlp.com>
> Subject: Re: [AMPS] ARRL and QST
To: <amps@contesting.com>
> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:48 PM
>
> I hardly think that cw is an archaic mode of communication, that is
> tatamount to saying that am is useless because it has been around for a
> long time and everyone is now using fm and now we come to ssb, hasen't it
> been here a while also? Just because the technology of the equiptment
has
> been upgraded does not mean that the means of using it has become
outmoded.
> cw is skills are highly prized and that mode is used by long distance
> dx'rs and is a high quality mode of communication. I would venture to
say
> that 90% of the people who want to do away with cw are too lazy to put
> forth the effort to acquire the skill to use it. I don't have an extra
> class yet but I am going to get it before another "dumbing down to
> equiptment operator" from the FCC is put into effect. It is not
> unreasonable to expect cw skills from an operator, this is "HAM RADIO'
for
> crying out loud, put forth some effort and be proud of your skills.
>
> Larry K0AEY
>
> ----------
> > From: Andy Wallace <andywallace@home.com>
> > To: Jim Reid <jreid@aloha.net>
> > Cc: CW Reflector <cw@qth.net>; 'AMPS' <amps@contesting.com>; Gilmer,
Mike
> <mgilmer@gnlp.com>
> > Subject: Re: [AMPS] ARRL and QST
To: <amps@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 4:03 PM
> >
> >
> > Shrinking of QST and the lack of interest by Techs in the ARRL is real
> > simple--the ARRL preoccupation with CW, an archaic mode of
communication
> > that all commercial users and the military have long since dropped. CW
is
> > fine for hobbyists but to make it a requirement to get an advanced ham
> > license is plain stupid as we head into the millinium. I find it real
> > interesting that Techs can legally use high power at frequencies more
> > dangerous and demanding than HF--go figure.
> >
> > Andy K5VM
> >
> > Jim Reid wrote:
> >
> > > Mike wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > >The ARRL may be "all (we've) got" but that sure doesn't mean we have
> to
> > > >like it. ..............snip......... As an ARRL
> > > >life member (which I became >20 yrs ago in high school) I must say
> that
> > > >the quality of QST's technical articles has gone down hill as ARRL's
> > > >size has grown (it has, hasn't it?) The technical and competitive
> > > >aspects of amateur radio must now be addressed in separate magazines
> > >
> > > The ARRL membership is evidently shrinking, per info from them.
Also,
> > > as new Tech's far exceed the number of new licenses of other classes,
> > > the ARRL has found that few Techs become members, and most,
> > > when they do, do not renew after the first year or so. Another
> > > problem is the decrease in applicants appearing at VE session,
> > > down around 25%.
> > >
> > > Thus the "thinning" of QST. Also, numbers of advertising pages has
> > > dropped in QST. Ad rates are lower in the specialized
> > > magazines, and, in some smaller outfits with ads in
> > > NCJ , QEX, never did have ads in QST, too costly, I guess.
> > >
> > > For example, consider the February issues of QST the last
> > > few years:
> > >
> > > February 1996.......208 pages inside the covers, ads on all
> > > but 89 pages, or 119 pages with ads (free new product
> > > announcements appear on several of the 89 editorial article
> > > pages; these are manufacturer's press release items, used
> > > by magazine editors as filler, to complete a page at the
> > > bottom, etc.).
> > >
> > > February 1997......192 pages, ads on all but 83 pages(again,
> > > some "free of cost" new product announcement items appear
> > > on many of the 83 article pages). and 109 pages with ads--10
> > > fewer ad pages than the previous year, 6 fewer article pages.
> > >
> > > February 1998........176 pages, ads on all but 73 pages, and
> > > 103 pages on which ads appear, 6 fewer than the previous
> > > year, 10 fewer article pages.
> > >
> > > February 1999.......160 pages, ads on all but 65 pages,
> > > and 95 pages on which ads appear, 8 fewer than previous
> > > year, and 8 fewer pages devoted only to articles/news.
> > >
> > > Or, now 24 fewer pages devoted to news and articles
> > > only!! So DX listings, propagation predictions, etc.
> > > are now gone, along with shorter section news
> > > items and such like.
> > >
> > > So, over the three elapsed years from Feb. '96 through
> > > to Feb issue '99, pure article/news content pages within
> > > QST have dropped 23%, and pages carrying ads have
> > > dropped about 20%. And the overall magazine has
> > > shrunk 23% in page count.
> > >
> > > Loss of advertising revenue, together with fewer members,
> > > while lobbying activities may have in fact increased, not
> > > sure, and today's higher employment costs, including
> > > higher payroll taxes/FICA/HMO, etc. result in fewer
> > > pages and services. However, it seems to me that
> > > services to members are still pretty high.
> > >
> > > I have not done a close look at article technical content/
> > > quality issues, but much of the stuff in the Feb. '99 issue
> > > appears to be pretty good quality. Maybe I should do a
> > > comparison of technical article pages vs. more news
> > > type article pages. I suspect they publish what is made
> > > available to them, also. If the overall technical skills
> > > of our ranks should drop, and it is from the ranks that
> > > much of the technical material comes, then the quantity
> > > and quality both of such will surly also go down.
> > >
> > > Just some thought about why the shrinking of QST magazine.
> > >
> > > 73, Jim, KH7M
> > >
> > > --
> > > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
> > > Submissions: amps@contesting.com
> > > Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > > Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
> > > Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
> > Submissions: amps@contesting.com
> > Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
> > Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
> > Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|