[geeks] Moved to geeks: Cheap Ham radios (was Dayton Hamfest)

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm at mendelson.com>
>Date: 2008/05/18 Sun PM 12:08:12 EDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Moved to geeks: Cheap Ham radios (was Dayton Hamfest)

>On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:37:42AM -0500, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> Geoffery, have you forgotten about economy of scale? A 20 meter rig
>> would have a much small, and more geographically-diverse market than an
>> entry-level 11 meter AM rig would.
>
>That's why I had suggested Ten-Tec do it. They have the facilites in place
>for design, fabrication, testing, marketing and delivery. 
>
>
>> Assuming similar technology, would a 20 meter rig with one mode of
>> operation (AM, CW, or SSB), offerred 5-12 watts PEP input power, and the
>> cruddy selectivity, sensitivity, and modulation of a $35 11 meter rig
>> sell? I would consider it the OLPC of the amateur radio market myself,
>> and it would be crushed by a market of vastly superior radios for
>> 50-100% more ($300-400).
>
>What market? AFAIK there are none in that price range. 
>
>The ICOM 703 is about $700, the Yaesu 817 is $600 and Alinco's offerings
>are $700 and $800. Granted they are much better radios with full HF
>and in some cases 6m, 2m, 70cm coverage, but the cheapest one is 3
>times the price.
>
>As the dollar sinks into the sunset and all of those rigs are made
>in the orient, I expect the prices to go up, not down. 
>
>Check out www.rffun.com (Universal Radio), www.aesham.com (Amateur
>Electronic Supply) or HRO (Ham radio outlet). The prices I quoted
>are from Universal, AES and HRO are cheaper, but not as well thought
>of.
>
>
>As for selectivity, a 2.4kHz ceramic IF filter would do fine for SSB,
>and according to many people on the Ten-Tec list (NOT including ME),
>fine for CW too. Better filters could be add on extra cost options,
>which is what I intended. Keep it cheap, pare it down and sell up
>as the customer's needs change.
>
>Since my opinions of the OLPC are well known on this list I would
>consider that comment as an insult if I cared. :-) I don't. If anything
>I am trying to make it a minimal rig, which can easily be expanded 
>instead of the OLPC, which is a maximal rig loaded with costly extras
>the intended audience does not need or want.

Aside from the political/educational issues of the OLPC, I meant simply the introduction of an "I've decided this is good enough" piece of equipment at a revolutionary price-point would generate interest, but would ulimately be found to be too limited for wide appeal.

Of course, I'm biased as a rich (in world standards) American, and I have a hard time really understanding third-world markets... I understand my limits ;^)

>One of the things I kept saying on the Ten-Tec list is that it should
>NOT be capable of CW operation without an add-on even if the cost
>for it is minimal. I don't want hams who never use CW feeling they
>had to pay for an option they did not need. I also believe that
>hams learning how to copy Morse code are going to be happy with a 
>2.4kHz bandwidth on HF as it will let through many signals on a 
>normal U.S. band.
>
>
>> Granted, such a rig *could* spark market interest in a low-cost HF
>> radio, but it would get crushed in the process.
>
>How so? 

By limiting the features they offer to open a low-cost market, they could (would is too strong, I correct my previous statement) be crushed when another Mfg. jumps in with a full feature set - see OLPC example above. That is a case where talk of a $100 laptop sparked interest in $300 Asus EEE and similar laptops.