|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
| Reviews Summary for popular communications |
|
Reviews: 51
|
Average rating: 2.0/5
|
MSRP: $(missing—add MSRP)
|
|
Description: magazine for shortwave,cb,scanner listeners some amateur radio articles
|
|
More info: http://
|
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this review.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
|
You can
write your own review of the popular communications.
|
KI0KM
|
Rating: 1/5
|
Oct 18, 2006 19:34
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Deteriorated magazine
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
|
I have subscribed to this magazine for over 20 years. At first it was a good magazine for swl and general communications. In recent years the overall quality has gone down, but the worst change has been the paranoid rantings of the editor. I decided some time ago to let my subscription run out and never subscribe again. Monitoring Times is a much better magazine for the subject matter.
|
|
N2NH
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Oct 18, 2006 08:28
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Needs Improvement.
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
|
I was an avid reader of PopComm from the first issue. Back in the '80s it was a good source of light reading on most subjects from BCB DXing to GMRS. I was a subscriber for 8 years. I used to read CQ or 73 for Amateur related topics though. I recently read an issue and was surprised at how little I enjoyed it. Gone were many of the features I used to read. Too bad. This was a great niche market magazine, but if they can't find the old magic, they may go the way of S-9.
|
|
W8VKD
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Aug 22, 2005 19:39
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
hmmm
|
Time owned: months
|
|
I didn't know it was still around. I bought my last issue several years ago and swore off of it after that.
|
|
N0FPE
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Aug 22, 2005 19:26
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Down Hill slide
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
I have been a subscriber since the very first issue.
Over the last few years things have gone down hill. Just not as good of a read as it was.. i will most likely NOT renew this time around..
|
|
KG4YJR
|
Rating: 0/5
|
Jun 26, 2005 11:10
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Like to read but.....
|
Time owned: 0 to 3 months
|
|
As my last review was deleted, maybe this one is a little more appropriate. I enjoy reading the magazine, no complaints on that end but I placed an online order for a subscription and after over a month and a half, I never received an issue, over six emails to three different departments that went unanswered, I've only gotten a renewal notice. How about that? 48 days, no issues and they already wanted me to renew. Isn't this something that consumers should be made aware of? The unanswered emails and unaccountability for my money, which I've contacted my cc company and will be refunded, is something I'd like to see others not have to go through myself.
|
|
W3UTD
|
Rating: 1/5
|
Apr 4, 2005 10:34
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Weak
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
Over the years I've occasionally read it for lack or something else, but info is poor and mostly outdated. Just plain boring! (and yes, I was a past subscriber for 2 years)
Monitoring Times is a far better choice for my $$$
|
|
N2GQL
|
Rating: 1/5
|
Mar 14, 2005 09:30
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
I've Given Up
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
After subscribing to Pop Comm since its very second issue in 1982, I have finally given up the sub. The magazine has been going down hill steadily since Tom Kneitel gave up the reigns, but it's gotten particularly banal in the past year of so, and excessively repetitive.
I just don't find the articles as interesting as they once were, and those that I find of use, are few and far between. So, I have left the Pop Comm family and move on to Monitoring Times, which I have found to be a much more well rounded and provocative publication.
|
|
N8KOM
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Jan 31, 2005 07:09
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Was good resoure before the internet -
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
|
I owned and read every issue for about the first 10 years. I worked in Signals Intelligence for the US Army, and based on my experience, I thought this magazine was a great resource (in the mid 80's) for radio monitoring hobbyists before the advent of the Internet made information exchange on radio communications monitoring topics much more widespread and easy. I don't mean to offend anyone, or give the appearance that I have an axe to grind, but Tom Kneitel and I exchanged personal correspondence a few times regarding the accuracy and means of verification for some of the information the magazine published, and in short - he was an ass. The best example was back in the early 1990's after the first Gulf War - there was a feature article regarding a "Communications Van" found in Iraq after the war, and the pictures of the Van and the antenna attached to it were clearly identifiable as a Russian "Spoon Rest" radar – Sorry folks, a radar van is not a radio communications center. The author of the article did not even mention or correctly identify that the equipment was actually Radar equipment, or suggest perhaps that there was some alternative use going on with this equipment – he just got it wrong, but had some great pictures of this stuff sitting in the sand. All that was needed to identify this error was to crack open a Jane's Defense Electronic Warfare reference book, but in this case, Tom decided to attack me in a personal letter, for pointing out this error of fact, instead of just printing a small correction or follow-up in the magazine. Oh yeah – the best part was the fake “TOP SECRET” codeword cover sheet and paper stationery he used for his correspondence, made me laugh out loud the first time he sent a letter to me using it. Come-on - using a fake copy of governmental classified information coversheets is not how you show someone that you have credibility in your published signals monitoring reports or articles! Oh well. Times change, this magazine was the cutting edge for the first 5 years or so, and I avoid it now because there are better sources out there. Someone mentioned this magazine might be a CB magazine… Maybe now it is, I haven’t looked at it in 10 years. I think Tom Kneitel was also heavily involved with CB radio and “S9” magazine, which I believe was a CB’er oriented magazine. In the end, if you are serious about communications monitoring, pick up any issue of Pop Comm BEFORE 1992 or 1993 and it would probably still be good reading today. Pre-1993 I rate it a solid 4+ and post 1993 I rate it a 2-.
|
|
KR4WM
|
Rating: 2/5
|
Jan 30, 2005 20:09
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
I still have the very first issue!
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
|
I have a collection of Pop Comm dating back to issue number 1. I bought it because I was interested in guerilla communications and pirate broadcasting. It took me over 15 years to log my first pirate station, then they seemed to come rolling in once a week. (Ever hear the drunk redneck chick on 6.955?) That being said, Pop Comm has become a historical ledger of radio and a hawker of new gadgetry, with a frequency list thrown in here and there for good measure. I miss the old Pop Comm. Sniffle. There was something about the magazine when Tom Kneitel ran it that kept me coming back for more. I still read it, and I still subscribe to it, but it's just not the same without Tom. My favorite article has become the last page. My second favorite is whatever is on shortwave. I'm not much of a scanner listener, so they may as well not even print anything scanner related on my account. Monitoring Times has better scanner frequency coverage and radio news anyhow if that was what I wanted. I buy Monitoring Times strictly for the satellite news coverage. Pop Comm is still worth reading, but does need help.
|
|
CLEBOT
|
Rating: 4/5
|
Dec 9, 2004 11:23
|
Send this review to a friend
|
|
Fun to read
|
Time owned: more than 12 months
|
|
Popular Communications is really what got me started in radio. I was home on leave back in 2000 and had my little handheld scanner with me (which I always use to travel with, especially after dodging some pretty heavy storms…NOAA weather radio saved my life!). After listening one night, I just happened to ‘stumble’ onto some hams that were talking about amateur satellites (I was still REALLY new to radio then). They had mentioned UO-14 and AO-27. I was instantly intrigued and wanted to learn more about listening to the ‘FM Birds’. They then said that there was a good article in Popular Communications. Needless to say, I went right out and bought a copy. Been getting it ever since, and am now working towards my license.
|
|
If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions about Reviews,
please email your Reviews Manager.
|
|
|
|
|
