KD6EVM wrote:

"If it was easy, anybody could do it"

Jim,

I hope you don't mind if I snipped 99% of our previous messages. It's

not because I am unwilling to challenge point for point, but rather
because, after a hard day of work, I don't have the time or energy! I

might try harder next Saturday evening, but tonight I need my rest.

I suggest you try answering them when you're more rested, Tom. No
hurry.

I have avoided becoming engaged in this debate for several years
because
I didn't feel that it was pertinent in the survival of the hobby. Now
I do.

Your best arguments are those regarding the feasibility of BPL as a
technologically appropriate means of delivering high speed internet
service. The laws of physics will trump the "laws" of economics any
day
of the week. My worry is that logic is often the last consideration
in a
scramble for the buck.

Agreed!

Logic and engineering judgement would replace all the make-do systems
we have with an optical fiber to each customer. Such a fiber could
deliver TV, data, broadband, POTS and lots more. Eventually we'll see
it - but not now.

You are operating under the assumption that logic
will prevail the onslaught of megabucks in the "free" and
"unregulated"
marketplace.

Not at all! The bucks themselves are now BPL's worst enemy, since FCC
won't do its regulatory job. BPL cannot compete with DSL or cable
broadband in the large markets - which is where the money is! And the
DSL/cable served areas keep growing, not shrinking. Meanwhile Wi-Fi
offers freedom from wired connections, and may eventually undercut DSL
*and* cable in cost.

What ARRL and hams have done is to gain valuable time in the anti-BPL
fight.

My major argument against your viewpoint is that the code IS a major
detriment to beginning the process of becoming a ham.

How so? The Technician license has had no code test for almost 14 years
now. Techs are hams just as much as anyone else.

When I was young
there was a MAGIC to wireless communication that simply does not
exist
today.

If that's universally true, then ham radio is doomed and there's
nothing anyone can do about it.

But I don't think it's true.

I work with students whose cell phones are far more sophisticated
than our best handhelds. They send images back and forth that the
sstv
operators would die for. How much do their "transceivers" cost?
NOTHING!
They are free (?) with their service! Put yourself in my position
trying
to explain that they can really have a lot of fun talking with
strangers
from different cultures with EXPENSIVE radios AND they need to study
for
a test in order to do so.

With all due respect, I think you're trying to sell ham radio the wrong
way. Ham radio cannot compete with commercial communications services,
and shouldn't try.

They say, "GEE, ATT wireless never asked me to take a test to talk to
my
uncle in Thailand. He's just there!"

Right - because of the enormous infrastructure beyond the cell phone.

If someone simply wants to communicate in normal situations, ham radio
is pretty far down on the options list. Always has been.

As VoIP and similar technologies become more common, it will soon be
common for people to connect via internet telephone for free - all over
the world.

The killer is when I tell them, "In order to talk to these really
cool
strangers around the world you need to learn this really cool code
that
was invented in 1844. It's REALLY slow compared with what you are
used
to, but in the event of a disaster, you will really appreciate it."

Perhaps if *your* attitude were positive about the code rather than
negative, you might have more success....

None of this is new, Tom. We're not that far apart in age. I graduated
high school in 1972 - here's what it was like for me:

Back then we all had TV, AM and FM BC radio, record players and tape
recorders, cameras and other gadgets. Every kid I knew had access to a
telephone - the rich kids had their own, us poorer kids had the family
phone, but local calls were unlimited and free. Some kids had CBs - a
few of us were hams. I went to a boys' Catholic high school that had
2500 students in 4 grades - and maybe 6 hams. Of those, perhaps 3 of us
are still hams.

We grew up watching NASA send men to the moon and unmanned probes to
Mars and beyond. I clearly remember John Glenn's flight in 1962 (when I
was 7 years old) and live TV coverage from the Apollo missions,
including watching the later missions blast off *from* the moon. Also
pictures coming from the Mariner missions to Mars, so far away that it
took a dozen minutes or more for the signals to get here at the speed
of light! What could our trivial HF "DX" offer to compare with that?

IOW, we were no strangers to radio communication. Yet amateur radio
back then was smaller and there were far fewer hams per capita in those
days than today.

To sell ham radio, we are in the marketplace of ideas. The code
requirement makes a hard sell even harder.

If you take the stand that it's a hard sell, it will be.

"If it was easy, anybody could do it," HELLOOO! Anybody CAN do it! If

you don't believe me, bop on down to your local high school and try
to
sell them a top notch handheld! NO WAY! They want a cell phone that
lets
them trade images and text messages.

Will dropping the code test create that in amateur radio?

Here's an example of what works.

Here's what one ham is doing - and has been doing for years.=AD I don't
know this ham personally, but he is right here in EPA. Note =ADthe
results and the reactions he gets. The following is a direct=AD quote:

BEGIN QUOTE

I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activit=ADy, at the

local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in the World=AD,
and it
covers many aspects of radio and television, and of course, pushes
=ADham radio.
Each year I have had several students, both boys and girls, obtai=ADn
their
license and try to help them continue on the hobby.

With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the studen=ADts were a

pleasure to work with and each year the district offers me a=AD nice
salary to teach the class and each year I decline it. Yes, it is a
lo=ADt of work,but the students enjoy it and come away with a very
positive ide=ADa of ham
radio. The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
w=ADork at
making sure I have an interesting program and that no part of it go=ADes
on and
on and on. I set the rules at the first meeting and have not had a=ADny
serious
problems. (My son and his friends have been my biggest prob=ADlem.)

If one expects the students to sit in their chairs and liste=ADn to a
presentation for an hour, after being in school all day, the=ADy good
luck. I combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part=ADs
of ARRL
videos short movies, simple building projects and computers.

Inte=ADrestingly,
the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code and se=ADem
less so
in modes connected with the computer.

I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the =ADkids obey

them and something must be going right, a few kids who were in th=ADe
previous
class always take the next year's class and we always have 35 to 4=AD0
students. In fact, my biggest problem is that other students want to
join=AD the class after it has been on a few weeks.

Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge =ADat Boy
Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for six kids. =ADI had
over
1/4 of the camp at the classes and more wanted to attend. We go=ADt a
dozen
hams out of that one.

So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about reac=ADhing out
to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just the camp alone, with
=ADeight
weeks of camp, would produce between 80 and 100 new hams....with
abou=ADt 400
Scout Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a very=AD
nice
increase in our membership.

I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new ham=ADs need
help in getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email
=ADaddress
and send them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and=AD
local
clubs.

We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people =ADin our
hobby, or we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh,=AD
it is
easier to complain...right?

END QUOTE

Note particularly when he writes:

"the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code a=ADnd seem
less so in modes connected with the computer."

A block to the license process?

Note also he's targeting the middle school kids. I got my license at 13
- 7th grade. That was after building a receiver from junk parts in
order to learn the code.

Amateur radio has a history of being at the cutting edge of
communication technology. Has anybody else noticed that, while we
have
been arguing over 160 year-old technology, we have been overtaken by
commercial digital technology?

This may be heresy to some, but the above is simply not true if you are
talking about the technology used by the vast majority of hams. It
hasn't been true since at least the 1920s.

Sure, small groups of pioneering hams have led the way. Whether it was
1XAM, 1MO and 8AB working transatlantic on 110 meters in 1923, or W6DEI
and a handful of others using SSB in 1934, or the folks doing EME,
OSCAR, SSTV, etc., those folks were the pioneers - but it took a while
for the majority of ham radio to get there, and in many cases the new
technologies remained special interests. What percentage of hams do
SSTV? EME? satellites?

Where amateur radio shines is being able to do a lot with a little bit
of technology, not from being on the cutting edge, because most of us
aren't.

Jim, how do you propose to stem the tide of the declining number of
amateur radio operators regardless if they are CW or phone operators?

More significantly, how do you propose that we increase OR MAINTAIN
the
proportion of amateur operators relative to the general population?

First off: Publicity. People need to know ham radio exists! When you
talk to those kids and their parents - how many have even heard of ham
radio before, let alone have a clear idea what it is like today?

I apologize if my remarks are particularly strident this evening. I
think we are far closer on this issue than you might realize. I am
torn
between the simplicity of the code and the realities of the digital
age.

Of course. What I'm saying is that it is precisely the simplicity and
uniqueness that is the selling point.

Anybody can pick up a 'phone and call Australia - no big deal. Just as
in my high school days it was no big deal to call the other side of the
continent. But to build a simple radio and do it directly, with no
infrastructure beyond the ionosphere? *That* was exciting!

The biggest selling point for amateur radio today - as it was in my
time - is that it is different, unique, and off the beaten path. That
it is *not* just like a cell phone, or IM, or email. That it takes real
skill and knowledge, not just a few button pushes.

That's what "if it was easy, anyone could do it" really means.

Of course not everyone wants a challenge. Not every kid wants to climb
rocks, run a marathon, bike 100 miles, build a computer from junk, etc.
The trick is to focus on those who do.

I have had my students make and use telegraph sets while studying the

"Western Movement." They are always curious about the novelty of
Morse
Code, especially with regard to the sinking of the Titanic.

Get them to watch "A Night To Remember" rather than the recent James
Cameron film. Much better IMO.

Between
myself and other amateurs who teach high school, I would estimate our

"conversion rate" optimistically at about 1 in 4,000. Of the same
sample, I would guess that at least 90% are cell phone subscribers.

Then I suggest perhaps the method needs to change. For example - do
they ever see Morse Code in use by a skilled operator? Say, someone
capable of wiggling a bug at 25 wpm, and writing down what comes in as
if it were someone talking? Most nonhams - and indeed many hams - have
not seen what Morse operation is like with skilled ops at both ends.

And the biggest selling point for a kid is that it is something *they*
can learn to do.

On recent Field Days I have run a CW station, and even "experienced"
hams are surprised by how fast we can make QSOs while they struggle
along on 'phone. The most interested folks are invariably the kids.

Thinking about the Titanic, I hope we are not rearranging the deck
chairs....

I would like to discuss these issues with you on the air, but, of
course, on SSB.

Why do you say "of course, on SSB"?

TNX

Thank you. Please consider what I've written, both in this post and the
ones preceding.

It's easy to simply blame the code test for ham radio's problems. The
solution seems simple and quick. But I think the real problems lie
elsewhere.

73 de Jim, N2EY