[AMPS] ARRL and QST
Larry L. Ravlin
sheepdip@continet.com
Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:48:09 -0800
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
> 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