A truly startling realization

  
I no longer subscribe to many printed magazines but I still always look forward to receiving a couple of my amateur radio publications, QST and CQ magazines, each month.  I really do enjoy reading about our hobby and appreciate the authors who contribute to these publications (for very little money in return). Shoot, I even study the ads, including those that have not changed in decades. (Why do some vendors insist on showing the faces of every radio by every manufacturer, as if we make our purchasing decisions based on those tiny thumbnails? And will MFJ ever change the full-page Hy-Gain rotator ad?)  I always feel good when I open the mailbox and one of the magazines is in there, waiting for me.  It usually lies right there on the hearth next to my recliner where I can pick it up and read an article whenever the mood strikes.

However, as I thumbed through the current edition of CQ, I could not help but notice that the lead article is about all the new gear unveiled this year at the largest amateur radio gathering in the world, the Dayton Hamvention in Dayton, Ohio. The event was in May! And it’s August as I write this. You know, there was a time when we took such delay in a story’s content as the norm. It is, after all, the nature of the magazine publishing biz that there must be considerable lead time for reporting, gathering info, composing the magazine, getting it printed and bound, and putting it in the mail at a rate that the publication can afford, even if it takes a few days to wend its way out to its readers.

But, for example, as I read the short writeup on the exciting new Elecraft KX3 portable transceiver, I recalled that there was a YouTube video posted way back on May 20 featuring Wayne Burdick K6XR giving a very enlightening ten-minute demo of this interesting bit of kit. Posted the same day it happened.  Video.  In full color. With sound. That I could pause, back up, re-run, and go back and look at anytime I wanted to without having to subscribe to and save a magazine or riffle through a bunch of musty, stacked-up old mags to find the one that had the article I wanted to read.  I just went to YouTube and pulled up the video.  It took me all of 20 seconds to find it and get it running.

Is the KX3 story old news in CQ? I’m afraid so.

ARRL recently did a major update on their web site, but though they are trying and it does give us quite a bit of content, it is still clunky and hard to navigate. It does offer some video (welcome to the 21st century) and plenty of archived articles and reviews, all of which is much more current, colorful, and searchable than the magazine could ever be. CQ is also trying, buying World Radio News and offering it as a free PDF download.  However, it is still basically a "print" magazine that can be read on a computer monitor (can ONLY be read there unless you print it out).  It still seems to have many of the same disadvantages as any other printed pub, though.  It just happens to be available on the Internet instead of showing up in the mailbox.

I would hate to lose the printed magazines, though.  I have to worry that the day will come when it is no longer economically feasible to mail me a magazine every month. I still prefer taking that paper-and-stapled thing out on the deck to read on a nice morning.  Or along with me to Subway at lunch to peruse while I enjoy my Black Forest ham sandwich.  And am I the only one that has trouble reading things on a monitor--even a big one--when I have to scroll and click?

Won’t happen, you say? The traditional magazine will never go away. Okay, what was your favorite article in your latest copy of Look or Life? Mind if I borrow your Saturday Evening Post?  There was a time when magazines argued that they could offer more in-depth reporting and analysis than newspapers or radio/TV.  More pretty pictures than you could ever get in a newspaper.  No longer true.  Google "Dayton Hamvention" (146,000 results) or "Elecraft KX3" (13,400 results)  Any publication offering that amount of stuff would not fit into my mailbox!

I rest my case. Truth is, media consumers want their content in a wide variety of ways, and will choose such media on three primary criteria:

1) How easy it is to consume in all those myriad ways,

2) How compelling the content is, and

3) How cheap it is to access. 

We see it happening with books, movies, television, music and more and it amounts to a revolution.  Some media will not fare well unless they figure out how to monetize--the new buzz word for all media--or subsicize some of the old ways of distribution.  As in any revolution, there will be casualties.

I’m afraid that does not bode well for QST and CQ.

73,

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/

Radio on the phone?

The National Association of Broadcasters has taken the stance that having the ability to receive FM-broadcast radio built into cell phones--by law--is the salvation of the medium.  In fact, it is about the only solution they are offering to keep over-the-air radio viable.

So along comes researcher (and a blogger I frequently reference here) Mark Ramsey who has conducted a survey to see just how much phone owners who already have this feature care about such a thing.  The results:

What this says is that it simply is not all that important to them.  If the question had been, "How often do you listen to the radio?", it would have been a huge percentage...somewhere north of 90% I'm betting.  But of these guys who already have a phone on which they can get FM radio, only 5% say they listen "nearly ever day."

What this says...and what Mark Ramsey has been maintaining all along...is that consumers don't particularly care about FM on the telephone.  Mark...nor I...are opposed to such a thing.  If the phone companies can sell it to their customers, bring it on!  The point is that the NAB and broadcasters are wasting time, effort and money pushing this as THE solution.

As I have said here over and over, consumers of media want to get content in a wide, wide variety of media.  They want radio from a radio, from the computer, from their smart phones, from their iPads...well, you get the message.  But what they really, really want is content that is compelling and engaging enough that they will dial it up, click on it, download it or do whatever they have to do to get it.  That includes over-the-air broadcasters, the historical controllers and purveyors or content.

But those broadcasters, as never before, face competition--not from each other so much--but from a broad variety of content pushers.  Pushers who are not only offering better heroin but giving it to users in a dizzying array of distribution methods.

People want what they want when they want it and by whatever means they can get it.  If broadcasters don't realize they are no longer in the tower-on-the-mountain-over-the-air-streaming-the-hits business, they are doomed to failure.  And it ain't gonna be pretty.

Don Keith
http://www.donkeith.com/
http://www.n4kc.com/
 

Nobody to talk to?

There's an interesting forum discussion going on at http://www.eham.net/ in which a relativly new amateur radio licensee asks why he is having so much trouble finding people with whom he can carry on a good conversation.  The responses have been all over the map but quite a few take the tack that society is mean, that amateur radio ops are not what they used to be, that the quality of people who are currently in the hobby is not what it once was...back in "the good old days."

You know what is funny? Had there been an Internet and online forums back in 1962, you would have seen many of the very same comments you see there now.  You know the kind...whether it's a forum for ham radio or for stamp collectors:

The hobby is going to heck. Nobody to talk to. Those SSBers are ruining the whole thing for the rest of us. People are impolite and disgustingly uncivil. They talk about things they shouldn't on the air. No wonder our numbers are dropping...kids aren't entering the hobby...the FCC is ignoring us, hoping we go away. The test is too easy. 5 WPM Novice? Disaster! Guys don't even know how to turn on their radios. Where's the challenge, the barrier to entry to keep out the riffraff? Glorified CB! Weed 'em out! Make 'em build a transmitter before they can get a license. Make the code test be 40 WPM.  That'll make sure anyone entering ham radio represents the elite, the best.  (Sound just a tad "Nazy Youth?")

I'm no Pollyanna, and I think I have a realistic view of the hobby, current society, and technological change. I even blog on it here for all five or six of my loyal followers.  We have the same problems, issues, idiots, and goofballs as we probably had when Marconi made the first DX QSO. We just have a much more elaborate (and anonymous) way to hear and complain about them.

There's an interesting concept among those who study media. It suggests that while life on this planet is so far superior for most of its inhabitants than it has ever been in history, we dwell on the bad things more. That's because good news and positive stories don't sell papers, increase viewers and listeners, or make you click on web sites. Doom sells!  (See my earlier rant about global warming.  Lots of folks have made money and won prestigious awards selling that concept!)

Case in point: that gal who was charged with killing her daughter down in Orlando but was found innocent. Women have been accused of killing their kids since the very beginning of time. Many were found innocent. Why does this one continue to be the lead story on all those cable channels?

And what does that have to do with not being able to find a QSO on 146.88? Well, hopefully you get the point. The hobby is not going to heck in a handbasket. There are jerks out there...on the hams bands just as there on the Internet and in real life. But there are also plenty of delightful, interesting people. We just tend to blog and post about the bad ones.

Maybe everyone should get off the forums and blogs and, instead, go twist a dial on their radios and listen!  Or actually smile and say hello to that person next to you on your next airplane trip.

When did "for-profit" become a slur?

(Off the technology-change topic for a bit this time, but I have to vent!)

There was a story on PBS's "Frontline" this week that purported to show all the terrible things for-profit colleges are doing to veterans, ripping them off as they are returning from serving their country.  Each time the reporter said the words "for-profit," it appeared he was using some kind of vile expletive.  And the story implied that schools that seek profit for educating veterans...and anyone else...are not only not providing any value, but are brutally abusing those who risked their lives for our country, all in the name of greed and avarice and obscene profits.

(BIAS DISCLAIMER: I work in marketing, advertising and PR for a company that operates colleges...for a profit.  I am in no way speaking in an official capacity or on behalf of my company in this article.)

Now, I can debunk the PBS story in so many ways it would make your head spin.  Give me a camera crew and several months and I can find disgruntled students from any college or university you name...from the University of Phoenix to Harvard or Yale.  For-profit schools are getting a growing portion of veterans' educational benefits because we are doing a much better job than traditional institutions in meeting the needs of those students.  Unlike state universities and other traditional schools, we don't get a penny of money from the government.  Students do, in the form of Title IV student aid or veterans' benefits.  They vote with their feet and go to schools that offer the education they need when they need it.  This story further implies that veterans don't have sense enough to investigate schools and potential careers without the Veterans Administration or some other government entity showing them the way.  That borders on slander.

In the story, we see a vet decide he wants to get a bachelor's degree in animation and video game design, signs up for classes at a for-profit, and then learns what a tough job field that is to break into.  Seems that before I committed thousands of dollars and four years of my life to preparing for a career, I would invest twenty minutes on the Internet to see if there were jobs available.  Your government spends millions of your tax dollars doing career research, publishes books available at the library and on the Internet, and anyone can access the data.  Google "Occupational Outlook Handbook."  There are regulations in place that forbid schools from promising jobs, lying about career options, or confusing or misleading potential students.  If anyone does that...and especially to men who have risked their lives on my behalf...they should be punished severely.

By the way, for-profit schools like ours are required to graduate a large percentage of people who enroll and to place them in their chosen career fields.  If we don't, we lose our accreditation and are out of business.  That's why you won't find academic programs in philosophy, basket-weaving...or journalism...at most for-profit career colleges.  If we see job demand diminishing, we drop the program.  If we see increased demand, we start the classes, as we have just done with our green energy tech school in Denver.  Start them with a big investment, taking the risk to hopefully meet the demand of students and the companies that will employ them, all with the expectation of being able to make a profit.  The point is that good for-profit schools have no incentive to enroll people who are not good prospects to complete the program and graduate.  Then, if we send ill-prepared grads out to potential employers, you can bet they won't hire them.  Or anyone else we send them in the future.  We have to do what we do well or we don't make a profit.  Or stay in business.  Or invest in new schools and programs and hire people.

But the even bigger issue here is how "for-profit" has gradually come to mean "fat cats in their corporate jets and yachts, ripping off poor, unsuspecting people."  I know it seems obscene when we hear how much so-and-so company pays its CEO, or what the profits are for a bank we taxpayers just bailed out a couple of years ago.  But stop and take a breath for a moment.  If the company is doing something well and making lots of money doing it, they will be incentivized to do other things well, invest, and hire.  So what's wrong with the company making ridiculous profits?  And shouldn't we praise them for dong so? 

As I mentioned before, if someone is truly breaking a law or regulation...and there are plenty of those laws and regs on the books, I can tell you...then they should be punished.  Fined.  Thrown into the calaboose.  Enforce the existing regs! But don't punish anyone for making an honest profit.  Or even a really huge profit.   And I know it galls me, too, to see profitable companies avoid paying taxes, but don't blame them if our tax system is chaotic and they take advantage of the mess.  They only follow the laws as written, just as you and I do when we do our own taxes.  Are you going to stop deducting your charitable contributions just because you are a wonderful citizen and don't want to use a lawful part of the tax code?

Let's say I have a little start-up company that takes some risks, I invest my 401K money and put some startup costs on my Visa card, and we develop and market a widget.  We are taking a big risk, but that widget is better than anyone else's and becomes a runaway hit.  My little company starts to make some serious profits.  We hire more people, build some more widget factories.  We even raise the price on our widget because we can, and people willingly pay it.  And that gives us more capital to develop another great product and build more plants and hire more folks.  But I also pay myself more, too.  And build a beach house, buy a corporate jet, join a country club, and take vacations in Europe.  Note that at no point have I burned any money, taken unlawful advantage of anyone, or stuffed cash under the mattress so nobody else can see it or use it.  Every self-indulgent thing I have done with those profits...willingly paid by people who like and want my widget...has created more wealth for others: the people I hire, the people who build and maintain those new factories, the carpenters, electricians, and plumbers who built my beach house, the guys who designed, built and sold me the corporate jet, the people who drill and refine the oil that I burn in the plane, the hundred or so people who are employed by the country club, the airline, hotel, and other workers who so ably hosted me on those European vacations.

Now, if in the process of creating and marketing that widget, I bribed somebody, lied about the dangerous materials we used to build it, colluded with anyone to set the price, or did anything else illegal or unethical, then hit me.  Hit me hard.  Prosecute me.  Fine me.  Send me to the slammer. 

But in every other way, government should be doing all it can to encourage me and others like me to create, innovate, invest, and build something.  It should not be throwing up new and convoluted ways of preventing me from creating wealth...and tax revenue...in a legal way.  Or demonizing me because I make a profit. 

Listen to me: so long as I am doing it legally and ethically, THE BIGGER PROFIT MY COMPANY MAKES THE BETTER IT IS FOR EVERYBODY!

If I make an inferior or dangerous product, or if I charge too much for it, the marketplace will speak loudly and clearly and I will not only not be banking all the filthy lucre, I will be shuttering my plants and laying off people.  Especially now, consumers are better informed than ever. 

I'll give you one more example.  I heard a story the other day on NPR (see a pattern here?) about the huge profits being made by for-profit correctional companies.  These are companies that contract with governmental entities to operate jails and prisons, and apparently, because they are doing something traditionally done by government (another parallel with the for-profit educational companies), they are not supposed to make too much profit.  Never mind that they are doing something the cities, states or federal government don't want to do, and that they are doing it more efficiently and are saving taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.  Or that the entities hiring them are perfectly well pleased with them.  They should not make too much money doing what they contracted to do or they are ripping us off.

If they are mistreating prisoners, feeding them gruel, sleeping a dozen to a cell or in any way violating the terms of their contracts, then go after them.  But don't punish them...and don't denigrate them...for making a profit, no matter how much it is.

Profits are not a zero-sum deal.  A company making a profit legally and ethically is not hurting or abusing anyone.  Profits don't get sent on a rocket ship to the moon.  They are used to buy and invest and inject a boost into every other sector of the economy.  Tax profits fairly, evenly and consistently so companies can plan for it and you will see our economic woes disappear.

Remove the profit motive from our free-enterprise system and you kill it.  But maybe that is the agenda some people have.  All profit is evil.  "For-profit" is obscene.  Anyone who makes a profit is a money-grubber and must be taking advantage of someone else or breaking laws to do so.  Let government dictate how much profit a person or a company can make.  Protect us from the robber barons!

That's the answer.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.donkeith.com/

"There's no such thing as TV anymore"

The television cable industry is struggling with the same rapid changing dynamics as all other branches of media are.  The way consumers want to subscribe to, access and use media is changing so rapidly and in so many directions it can only be compared to trying to nail Jello to a tree.  Some of the comments coming from the Nationa Cable Show clearly demonstrate how the leaders of what we still consider to be "cable television" have hammers in hand and a dollop of Jello ready to make the attempt.  They just can't quite figure how to get it accomplished.

Perhaps the most telling comment was the shortest, from Time-Warner CEO Glenn Britt: "There's no such thing as TV anymore."  How true!  He says there are now, in the minds of most consumers, only "video devices."  Case in point: how many of you use that big screen in the den just to watch over-the-air TV?  And where else do you watch what might be classified as "video?"

This goes directly to my contention that regardless the medium, users want to be able to access their media in a variety of ways.  Few are exclusive to one.  We want to watch movies on our TV sets, on our iPads, on our computers, on our smart phones, and, yes, in theaters down at the mall.  We like to read books on our computers, on our smart phones, on our Nooks or Kindles and, yes, on paper, bound, with a cover.

This is still baffling to traditional broadcasters, cable operators, movie studios, book publishers and others who have seen their businesses remain relatively the same for decades.  Centuries in the case of book publishing.  But now, suddenly, everything is topsy-turvy.  Traditional business models that enriched them don't work anymore.

Those who cannot understand that they are no longer in the "TV," "radio," "movie theater," or "book publishing" business are in real trouble.  Those who understand that they are in the "content" business and that they need to be able to deliver that content in whatever ways people want to consume it will be the ones that prosper.  Whatever ways and forms.  Radio with video.  Books with dynamic web links.  Audio with pictures.  Magazines that talk and move.  Video games with printed backstory.  Movies that allow you to "chat" with the characters.

And wow!  The implications of all this to the business of advertising is staggering!  People not only want all this stellar content coming at them in a variety of ways but they also want it cheap, cheap, cheap.  Cheap content distribution has almost always been possible because of the support of advertising.  Advertising planned, priced, and paid for based on the numbers of eyeballs or ears that consumed it.  Numbers determined by ratings measurement.

All that is changing just as quickly and dynamically as everything else associated with media.  If there is no such thing as TV anymore, then how do TV advertisers get their message to folks?  If I listen to radio in a wide variety of ways, how can advertisers assure I hear their sales pitch enough times to make it effective?

And believe me when I tell you that nobody can measure media usage the way media is now being used. 

It's a wild scenario, my friend, filled with drama, intrigue, and unexpected plot changes!  And I can't wait to see how the story develops.

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

Our little sliver of time

All the news sources--I saw it on Yahoo!, of all places--are churning out stories today about the current state of the surface of the sun.  Three different sources have issued dire predictions about the sleepy sun and what it means for mankind...and not just us hams, who enjoy bouncing signals off an ionized atmosphere.



You know as well as I do that simply saying this cycle is slow to develop is not going to attract much reader interest.  But if you say there is the possibility that the dormancy of Ole Sol portends historic implications, that it could reverse the effects of that evil, man-made global warming, that there could be unknown but potentially catastrophic weather events as a result...heck, even that we are on the verge of another Maunder Minimum, when the sun went to sleep for 300 years and we entered a "mini-Ice Age!"...then you will get some attention.  Attention to your columns, your websites, your blogs, your books, your speeches.

I know it is human nature to see things from a very narrow perspective.  Understanding things like climate change that usually takes eons to be obvious and variations in sunspot minima and maxima that only occur in eleven-year cycles are difficult for us mortals to do.  Geologic time is impossible for us to comprehend in our simple little seven- or eight-decade life spans.  That's why all the junk about rapid climate change (which I consider normal weather variation) has found so many who are willing to swallow it, hook, line and sinker.

I admit I know little about sunspots or solar weather, beyond the fact that more spots equal better propagation on the high-frequency radio bands and pretty displays of the Northern Lights.  But seems to me that it is far too early to say the sun is going to be dozing for the next three centuries simply because cycle 24 is a tad bit slow to get moving.  After all, many of these same "experts" were touting what an active cycle this was going to be...and doing it only a year or so ago.

Reminds me of the high-tech "weather rock" my wife has in her flower garden.  "If this rock is wet, it is raining.  If it is dry, it is sunny.  If it is white, it is snowing."

I'm still hoping for an active solar cycle.  I have somehow managed to be inactive in my amateur radio activities during each of the past two cycle maxima, and I had high hopes for that "arm-chair" ragchew with the Far East on 10 meters in the middle of the day.  But if it doesn't measure up, so be it.  I talked to guys all over the world at the lowest point, after all.

But most of all, I'd like to see everyone calm down a bit and not be so myopic.  We see only a tiny slice of time in our own existence.  Even so-called scientific observations are looking at a pitifully narrow slab of time. 

Put it into perspective before you panic and sell all your ham gear.  Or before you stop gazing northward for a glimpse of the aurora borealis.

By the way, I checked.  There is nothing we can do about the state of the sun's surface, so why worry?

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

An amazing piece of "kit"

That's what the Brits call ham radio gear..."kit."  And let me apologize right up front for two amateur radio blog posts in a row.  However, I think this one speaks well to the rapid technological change that is going on in the hobby.

I remember when I started out...way back when Marconi was spitting sparks off an energized bit of wire...a ham radio station usually consisted of a big transmitter--like a Viking Valiant or a Heath DX-100--and an even bigger receiver.  I had a Hammarlund HQ-180 and it was the size of a larger microwave oven.  Only the rare amateur radio operator dared put radios into his vehicle, and the thought of putting any kind of station into a pack and heading for portable operation was unheard of.

Things have changed dramatically.  I have a Yaesu FT-857D that is about the size of a cigar box and it, along with a tiny switching 12-volt power supply and a simple wire antenna, gets me on the air from anywhere there is AC.  And Yaesu makes a version of my radio that has a built-in battery pack that removes the necessity of AC altogether.  There are many other examples of very small, very advanced radios that can sit on the desk at home with a full set of features, be easily installed in the vehicle for mobile operating, or head for the campground or beach (or some emergency shelter somewhere).



Now, I have seen the most amazing bit of "kit" yet.  Elecraft, a company that has really created some elegant new gear that takes advantage of emerging technology, announced a transceiver at the Dayton Hamvention in Ohio last weekend.  The Elecraft KX3 is a truly remarkable slice of technology.  HERE is a demonstration of this thing.  I have no idea what the price will be, but I want one! 

No, I want several!

Don Keith N4KC
http://www.n4kc.com/
http://www.donkeith.com/

(PS: Somebody wrote that if you just use the words Elecraft and KX3 in a blog, the search engine robots beat a path to your site.  We'll see!  Any of you robots interested in hooking up with a KX3?)