Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /homepages/11/d132647312/htdocs/Amfone/mkportal/include/SMF/smf_out.php on line 47
Has the League accepted that ham radio is "dumbed down&




 
The AM Forum
December 05, 2021, 06:21:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Has the League accepted that ham radio is "dumbed down&  (Read 8180 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10062



« on: March 08, 2005, 12:08:16 AM »

The following is a copy of a message I posted on another BB.  What do you think?

Quote
> >> I don't like the content of "QST", I'd rather
> >> get "QEX" than "QST".
> >
> >> The technical content of "QST" has gone from "some
> >> extremely challenging",
> >> to some "quite easy" to articles which are
> >> written at 6th grade level.
>... One thing that
>irked me is that I became a Life Member in
>about 1980. Then they created "QEX", and moved
>alot of the good stuff (that I thought I had paid
>for) to "QEX".
>One thing I don't particularly enjoy in QST is the
>"Lifestyle Pieces". You know, like the retired
>Doctor who goes on boat trip with ham radio, etc.
>These seem kind of like "Trailer Life" type
>articles
>Then one that took the cake was the two page
>article on using the phonetic alphabet. You know,
>like "A" is "ALPHA", "B" is "BRAVO", etc. I
>couldn't believe that would warrant a two page
>QST article!



My reply:

QEX evolved from the old Experimenters Section in QST.  

Now, in QST, most of the construction projects are accessory toys such as keying monitors, line voltage indicators and field strength meters, or silly little novelties like a QRP cw transmitter built into an empty match box. The "technical" articles are mostly at the novice level, designed to explain to newcomers such things as proper microphone technique, what SWR is and how to use the ALC in a transceiver. In other words, QST has evolved into what is primarily a "Novice" publication even though the Novice class licence is being phased out.  Occasionally there are some good antenna articles, but most of the real technical stuff is in QEX.  I resent being a full member but having to pay extra for a second publication (which I don't do), for the material that I most interested in.

With the advent of the internet, the news content in QST (and the other remaining "mainstream" ham publication) is old by the time it arrives in the mail.  Up-to-date "happenings" are now obtained off the web, so QST has become less usesful in that aspect as well.

Supposedly, the annual fee is for League membership, and the publication is an extra that comes with it.  If they insist in dividing the publication into two magazines, members should have a choice of which one to receive.  To  me, the present-day QST clearly indicates that the League has accepted  "dumbing down," even though they would never admit to that.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
Jim, W5JO
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2480


« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2005, 09:08:43 AM »

Quote from: k4kyv
The following is a copy of a message I posted on another BB.  What do you think?

Quote
> >> I don't like the content of "QST", I'd rather
> >> get "QEX" than "QST".
> >
> >> The technical content of "QST" has gone from "some
> >> extremely challenging",
> >> to some "quite easy" to articles which are
> >> written at 6th grade level.
>... One thing that
>irked me is that I became a Life Member in
>about 1980. Then they created "QEX", and moved
>alot of the good stuff (that I thought I had paid
>for) to "QEX".
>One thing I don't particularly enjoy in QST is the
>"Lifestyle Pieces". You know, like the retired
>Doctor who goes on boat trip with ham radio, etc.
>These seem kind of like "Trailer Life" type
>articles
>Then one that took the cake was the two page
>article on using the phonetic alphabet. You know,
>like "A" is "ALPHA", "B" is "BRAVO", etc. I
>couldn't believe that would warrant a two page
>QST article!



My reply:

QEX evolved from the old Experimenters Section in QST.  

Now, in QST, most of the construction projects are accessory toys such as keying monitors, line voltage indicators and field strength meters, or silly little novelties like a QRP cw transmitter built into an empty match box. The "technical" articles are mostly at the novice level, designed to explain to newcomers such things as proper microphone technique, what SWR is and how to use the ALC in a transceiver. In other words, QST has evolved into what is primarily a "Novice" publication even though the Novice class licence is being phased out.  Occasionally there are some good antenna articles, but most of the real technical stuff is in QEX.  I resent being a full member but having to pay extra for a second publication (which I don't do), for the material that I most interested in.

With the advent of the internet, the news content in QST (and the other remaining "mainstream" ham publication) is old by the time it arrives in the mail.  Up-to-date "happenings" are now obtained off the web, so QST has become less usesful in that aspect as well.

Supposedly, the annual fee is for League membership, and the publication is an extra that comes with it.  If they insist in dividing the publication into two magazines, members should have a choice of which one to receive.  To  me, the present-day QST clearly indicates that the League has accepted  "dumbing down," even though they would never admit to that.


Agreed Don.  It would not be bad for me if I could view QEX on line but it can't be done.  You must search the database for a specific aritcle and do not have the entire publication on line to view at one time.  While this would work for you and me, it is a disservice to other member who may not have access.
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2005, 07:13:53 AM »

Hi, Phil - welcome to the board!  I half expected to see you at Phrank's Pharty last weekend.

I will say that the League's fight against BPL, and the fact that they employ guys like Ed W1RFI and  Joe Carcia make the $39 money very well spent.  Without the ARRL fighting, this abomination would have been much more widespread and the offending systems wouldn't have been shut down.  'Sides, that's less than a dime a day.  And the ARRL tries (and largely succeeds) to cater to all amateur interests (few of which I share, but there you go).

However, I agree with you on the QST/QEZ conundrum.  I can spend hours going thru old QSTs from the 50's but the newest issues receive a cursory glance, if that.

I was very sorry to see that they let Dana, W1LC go.  The handbook, which was his baby, has been outstanding under his helm.

73 John
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7918


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2005, 01:12:26 PM »

Quote from: K2PG
That is one of the reasons that I dropped my ARRL membership. I could not justify spending $39 per year to get a worthless publication that went straight into the trash, rather than the publication (QEX) that I really wanted. As for the other "benefits" of that $39? I don't collect awards, so I don't care about whether or not I can get DXCC, WAS, or any of the League's other "members only" awards. That asinine proposal to retain subbands and to bring back some of the bandwidth criteria of the original Docket 20777 likewise shows that the pooh-bahs in Newington still don't get it. They certainly do not represent MY interests! Why should I support their organization?

Why can't we just forget about all that subband nonsense and deregulate amateur radio the way the Canadians (and others) did? One must wonder if any of the League's Directors ever even listen to the HF bands!


Would you join the ARRL if they had no monthly magazine??
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W8ER
Guest
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2005, 03:28:06 PM »

Quote from: w3jn
 ...<snip>
I will say that the League's fight against BPL, and the fact that they employ guys like Ed W1RFI and  Joe Carcia make the $39 money very well spent.        

John ..  I almost agree with you but then, like Phil says, they come along and support this sub-band by bandwidth proposal and make it a clear case of my $39 going to support something that I am totally against.

--Larry W8ER
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4605



« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2005, 07:00:05 PM »

Rather have ham radio with the stupid sub band crap but WITHOUT BPL!

Besides, Ed's a nice guy - gotta pay his salary somehow!

73 John
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Jack-KA3ZLR-
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2005, 07:10:43 PM »

Quote from: K2PG
That is one of the reasons that I dropped my ARRL membership. I could not justify spending $39 per year to get a worthless publication that went straight into the trash, rather than the publication (QEX) that I really wanted. As for the other "benefits" of that $39? I don't collect awards, so I don't care about whether or not I can get DXCC, WAS, or any of the League's other "members only" awards. That asinine proposal to retain subbands and to bring back some of the bandwidth criteria of the original Docket 20777 likewise shows that the pooh-bahs in Newington still don't get it. They certainly do not represent MY interests! Why should I support their organization?

Why can't we just forget about all that subband nonsense and deregulate amateur radio the way the Canadians (and others) did? One must wonder if any of the League's Directors ever even listen to the HF bands!



 Hi Phil,

  I sometimes get to Rough about the League, But i do agree with your proposal...Sounds FB to me...Forget Subanding...
Logged
wk3c
Guest
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2005, 11:31:14 PM »

Quote from: Pete, WA2CWA
Would you join the ARRL if they had no monthly magazine??

Assuming, from the subscription prices of other magazines such as CQ and Monitoring Times, that most of that $39 pays for the QST subscription that accompanies ARRL membership, I would consider reaffiliating with the League if I had the option of joining without receiving QST. Without that horrible magazine, the membership dues should be in the ballpark of $10 to $15.

Having, amongst other things in my 35 year+ carreer as an RF engineer, been Managing and Technical Editor of a BPA-audited technical trade publication, I would assert that, with the ad to content ration in QST, if it's not a "cash cow" (revenue positive) someone's doing something SERIOUSLY wrong.

73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 18 queries.