From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Re: New licensing system? (Cut down the CW bands!!)
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:12:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.174003.2161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>The same thing could have been, and was, said in the days of spark. Tubes
>were too expensive, amateurs didn't have the skill to use them, etc. But
>the Feds changed the rules anyway. What I've advocated is voluntary band
>plans so the Feds don't have to get involved when superior techniques
>emerge the winner in the marketplace.

Sorry, but this is historically off base.  Tubes started seeing application
in amateur radio just after WWI; the early manufacturing process couldn't
keep up with demand.  The breakthrough came about in 1921, when RCA
drastically cut prices.  By that time, a good proportion of the amateur
activity was devoted to CW experimentation.  The actual conversion process
took several years, with the Radio Act of 1927, by which time the number
of spark stations was neglible.  Ref: _200 Meters and Down_ by DeSoto.

In any event, you've failed to demonstrate how the current "narrowband /
wideband" division places any significant restriction on you.

>Well there aren't any ham rigs with this built in right now, Kenwood's
>bandpass filter is not in the same league as this box, though it probably
>could be with only software changes. I certainly think the $199.95 price 
>point is acceptable given the capabilities of this box. Now competition 
>and mass production will tend to drive the price point downward, I expect 
>the component cost is under $50 today in 1,000 quanity. This is like AM and 
>SSB, people complained that SSB rigs cost too much, but they bought them 
>anyway because they performed so much better on a crowded band. People
>won't buy equipment they don't need, well they will with the right 
>marketing, but they *need* this box today, and will need it even more
>if mixed mode usage becomes the norm. If solves real problems at a cost
>effective price.

I guess you just missed the great "why are TNCs still so expensive" debate,
because your cost argument won't (and hasn't) cut it in the real world.  Aside
from the development costs, there's the simple fact that the worth of a thing
is what that thing will bring.  Something that dramatically improves
performance will be priced higher.  If the cost of the Kenwood box is any
indication, you're talking about at least a third of the cost of a new rig.
The simple truth is that, at the moment, the cost/benefit ratio is too low for
most amateurs.

>Ah yes, spark forever. It's chicken and egg, we'll never have cost effective
>equipment if it's illegal to use, and you say it'll remain illegal to use
>as long as it's expensive. That argument didn't work with CW vs spark, why
>should it work now?

This is a whole new argument.  It isn't illegal to attach any sort of audio
filter to your rig.  You're now talking about modulation techniques, and
specifically spread spectrum, which I addressed earlier.  And no, SS isn't
necessarily any more spectrally efficient than narrowband techniques, unless
you've decided to Balkanize Shannon's Law...

--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX/5W1JX  | "Just name a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum."
->paulf@Stanford.EDU          |  -- Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, USMC (ret)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy