| KG4YJR |
Rating:  |
2005-06-26 | |
| 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:  |
2005-04-04 | |
| 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Over the years I've occasionally read it for lack or something else, but info is poor and mostly outdated.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 $$$ |
|
| Rene F. Tetro |
Rating:  |
2005-03-14 | |
| 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:   |
2005-01-31 | |
| 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-. |
|
| WY3X |
Rating:   |
2005-01-30 | |
| 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:     |
2004-12-09 | |
| 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. |
|
| OLDFART13 |
Rating:  |
2003-12-12 | |
| It's a CB magazine. |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
| This magazine has articles about CB, Freebanding and Pirate operations. This is not a ham radio publications. |
|
| W4MGY |
Rating:  |
2003-03-15 | |
| Seen Better |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
Pop Comm has seen it's better days. I read it from it's introduction in Sept of 1982, until July of 2001 when I let my subscription expire. In the early days, Tom Knitel did a better job, the articles had some deph to them and I used to look foward to receiving a copy every month. When Harold Ort took over, the magazine slowly developed an anti-CW, pro-freebanding bias. This was rather odd for a magazine whose sister publication was CQ magazine. Oh well, Good Luck Pop'Comm. This is what happens when emphasis of what was a great hobby is dumbed down to satisfy the lowest common denominator. By the way, Short Wave Magazine (SWM) was a lot better publication than Pop'Com..exceipt it is designed for readers in the UK.
----------------------
Earlier 1-star review posted by W4MGY on 2000-10-29
Having been a subscriber since the first Issue 19 years ago, I have finally decided to let my Pop Comm subscription lapse when it expires next year. This is not the same magazine it was under the leadership of Tom Kneitel, K2AES. Tom wrote some of the best articles that ever came from the pen of an avtive SWL and Ham. He was from the golden era of shortwave radio in the 50 & 60's.
PopCom frequently has typo errors; more than there should be in a magazine of this Calibere. For over a year until the FCC's restructuring went into effect in April; PopCom kept a running debate going on concerbing the CW vs No-CW issue. Earlier this year it spearheaded a proposal to eliminate the 155 mile restriction on CB communications. Thanks to the ARRL and the NAB, shooting skip is still a no-no on CB. Lastly, Pop Comm caters too much to CBer's; a group I wish would finally grow up.
Least anyone acuse me of being a luddite, or having my head in the sand; I found a way to save $25.95 next year. You are usibg it, the Internet.
|
|
| W8OB |
Rating:   |
2003-03-15 | |
| needs improvement |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I just re- subscribed to this magazine after not reading it for the past year other than a copy here or there at the news stand. Either I have grown smarter in the last year or the mag scope is really dumbing down. My main interest in the magazine was always the AM broadcast articles along with any LW info and of course the Ham articles. The last couple of issues have had very little meat and potatoes to them. I think the mag can do without articles and program reviews on FRS and GMRS radios as well as trash out the freebanding articles. Dixon gets rambling on about nonsense and is starting to sound like Wayne Green , But Wayne made sense about a lot of the things he carried on about, Dixon does not. I agree the earlier post , when Tom was running the show it was a much better rag to read. I also notice that the thing is getting pretty thin, Turn er sideways on the coffee table and its hard to see. This months letters portion was completely wasted by some dude named Dave crying about how the freebanders should be given the whole 26-30 MHZ portion for their pleasure as they were all professional operators. Yes maybe we all should submit some articles to the magazine, I am going to submit a couple of articles about antennas and BCDX and see what happens. On the plus side the guy writing the Old radio articles is right up there, just his monthly restoration info makes the mag worth it right now, And the new Lady who took over the AM radio portion is doing a excellant job. Anybody who had to replace Alice on that portion of the magazine had to fill in quite a void. Otherwise come on guys get with the program.
----------------------
Earlier 1-star review posted by W8OB on 2000-10-26
this used to be a magazine i looked forward to receiving every month. however the past 6 months or so the editiorials have been full of wanna be whining. i thought the proposal to the fcc to remove the cb distance limit was foolish and now some of the comments on amateur radio licensing as well as monthly readings of the so called freebanders news and qsl cards are a real turn off.the aircraft band articles are a real sleeper, i think when renewal time comes on this will let it pass |
|
| KB3FGL |
Rating:   |
2003-03-14 | |
| Reading for years |
Time Owned: more than 12 months. |
I started reading the mag in 1984, (approx.) I was about 13 years old. I read and devoured every line. But I have to agree w/ many of the other comments written here. As I look at this months issue I think I see for the hundreth time a 'return to the basics' with regards to scanning.
Maybe we need to submit more articles. I am writing one now w/ hopes it will make an issue. Dipoles, and what antenna is best for my handheld scanner gets pretty old and frequency lists I can find online, and even better frequencies online. They need to be relevant and they need to provide things that you cant get online.
I have always wanted to see more pictures of massive antenna arrays on top of buildings, or what an FM Broadcast antenna looks like and what it takes to put a signal out from the studio to the antenna on the mountain. How about a look at FAA comms, (what can be shown). Perhaps a contest could be drawn up that gives people a free subscription (or something) for writing an article describing the comms to be a heard in a particular area of the country.
I like to see pictures of antennas and radio displays. How does Computer Aided Dispatching work? How about an interview with the top makers/dealers/etc. of our favourite ham radio/ scanner/swl equip?
And most of all, how about a sit-down w/ the leader of Radio Shack and ask him why not one of his scanners cover the military air band?
Why do we not see articles about the Yupiteru models/> ? Because we dont see ads from that company? How about Radio Shack moving away from ham radio sales?
I really would like some insight as to what the future holds in the scanner/sw market from the people who develop them. I want to know if they themselves are hobbyists. Or are they all from China, where Radio Shack has it's scanners made.
Do I make sense? Of course I do. I have a habit of making companies work. I could make POP COMM work for the reader and bring subsciptions up 40% in three years.
|
|