From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: New licensing system? (Cut down the CW bands!!)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.231245.18214@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>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.

I was addressing the issue of SS being illegal at HF. Wide usage *can't*
develop if the technique is illegal. The arguments over tubes and spark
were illustrations of the resistance to change by amateurs of the era.
The cry of "spark forever" from the rank and file did require Federal
action to resolve even though some amateurs had already converted to
tubes, legally, before the rules changes. Now the problem with HF SS
is that it can never start if the "spark forever" forces inhibit the
Feds from legalizing it. The cases are somewhat different, but the
analogy still applies.

>>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.

The Kenwood box *is* a new rig, not just a DSP processor. The existance
of the small add on box, priced at $199.95 shows that the product can be
and *is* being marketed at a reasonable price. When microprocessors were
first introduced into radios, they were more expensive too, but every
manufacturer now includes at least one as a matter of course. Adjusted
for inflation, microprocessor equipped rigs are cheaper today than the
analog units they replaced were in their day. I'm saying I expect DSP
to be included as a routine matter of course in future rigs, just like
microprocessors are in rigs today, and that the parts cost is already
low and rapidly falling further so that the price of the rig won't
necessarily increase much if at all when they become a routine part of
every HF radio. If one of the major manufacturers introduces DSP, and
Kenwood already has, then the others will be forced to do so in order
to stay competitive.

TNCs today are at a price point where large numbers of amateurs consider
their functionality worth the cost, over 150,000 TNC2 type units have
been sold in the amateur market and the price has declined threefold
from that of the original TNC1 due to competition. And yet TNCs aren't
adjuncts to historical amateur communications methods. They are specialized
tools for a specialized mode. DSP is much more generally applicable to
amateur practice. That means a larger demand, larger sales, more competition,
and generally lower prices. I predict that a HF rig without DSP will be
considered "quaint" in 10 years just as rigs without microprocessors are
today, and that manufacturers will be hard pressed to sell such limited
radios.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy