On 16 Oct 2005 15:43:37 -0700, wrote:

License testing for manual morse code cognition skill simply
became obsolete. A REAL problem is that those who passed
the manual tests refuse to let it BE obsolete...it is an
ingrained psyche touchstone, a mile-marker of how far they
came once. They refuse to look at the future and OTHERS
who may come later. It is a very personal thing to them.

For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code
testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation
that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on.

I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a
no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to
opposition by ARRL. It was along about the same time that computers
first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of
technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham
radio and its code testing. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for
around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a
fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit
manufacturers vanished around this time period as well).

Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and
then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing
and spend $200 or so on a computer. Thousands voted with their feet,
and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio
and went into computers instead.

Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as
posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who
might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test
are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and
probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them
one gratis. As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones,
and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on
the space shuttles, and the computers in today's homes are capable of
real-time communication between almost any two points in the world
without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other
such inconveniences.

So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? We're nothing more
to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call
CW which is good for a laugh but little else.

Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come
full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and
IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.


Another casual factor is human mortality. Keeping things
as they were is a form of psychological stability..."all
things are as they were then" and there are no new things
to overcome. Keeping the status very quo is comforting to
those who have become "mature." :-) It has an artificial
stability sense of delaying their own demise...in addition
to the nostalgia and yearning for a youth now irrevocably
lost to the past.

Someone much wiser than myself (I forget who) once wrote that one
always retains one last bit of foolishness from childhood, that to
retain all of them is to be immature, but that to surrender all of
them is an even worse alternative.

From that standpoint, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to
maintain the status quo - for themselves. The error in judgement is in
trying to force the same status quo on the rest of the world.

In many Comments elimination of the
federal requirement of manual code testing will cause a
near-total cessation of manual morse code use if removed!
[extremists add the degeneration into anarchy and chaos,
supposedly the environment of CB]

It has been noted previously that CB-like behavior is engaged in by
some hams who have passed a code test, while at the same time there
are plenty of hams who have never passed a code test who do not behave
like some of the neanderthas who inhabit 11 meters, not to mention the
MURS, marine VHF, FRS, and other license-free or licensed-by-rule
radio services. Thus, the successful demonstration of telegraphy
skills is not a character reference, as FCC has pointed out in almost
exactly those words.

What I haven't seen discussed is the effect of economics. One can buy
a brand new CB rig for $50 or less these days. Stick a $20 mag-mount
antenna on something metal and you have a CB station of modest
capabilities for under $100. No code, no written test, and if you
happen to be a major asshole it's not a problem either. Ham rigs cost
a heck of a lot more, the cost of even used HF rigs is several times
what a CB rig costs. I think that is more likely to keep the CB cave
dwellers off the ham bands a lot longer than any code test would.

Note that not all CB operators fit the above comments, and however
unfortunately, not all hams fail to fit the above comments.

In the USA the FCC was on public record 15 years ago that
it did not feel that any manual morse code test was
necessary for their purpose in granting USA ham licenses
(FCC 90-53, a copy of which visible on www.nocode.org).
However, the test requirements were still in the Radio
Regulations of the ITU-R and the USA was obliged to obey it.

Not really, the USA simply chose to obey it. The USA has similarly
chosen unilaterally not to obey other international agreements,
including one related to the use of land mines and another related to
greenhouse gases and the so-called "global warming" effect.

Say what you want about the lack of code testing, but at least
code-free ham radio doesn't blow people's legs off or threaten to melt
the polar caps and turn W1AW into an IOTA station.

Obsolesence in Radio Regulations finally was recognized,
not only in S25.5 but in many other parts of S25. S25 was
rewritten at WRC-03 and manual morse testing made optional
for each adminstration. [there won't be another WRC until
2007] Since 2003, 23 countries have removed the absolute
necessity of testing for manual morse skill for HF and
below. It should be noted that the International Amateur
Radio Union was FOR the modernization of S25 at least a
year prior to WRC-03...and the optionality of code testing
by each administration.

It should also be noted that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the
ARRL, which appears determined to go down with the ship at least.

One problem, a REAL problem, here in the USA is the un-
willingness of the ARRL to go with the desires of the
majority of American radio amateurs. They seem to cater
to their core membership which is the older, code-tested
amateurs. The ARRL membership is (as of July, 2005) still
only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs, definitely not
a majority. ARRL has to either "go with the flow" or
give up saying that it "represents the ham community."

On this point...okay, granted that ARRL does not go with the desires
of the majority of US hams, but why should they? As you point out, the
majority of US hams are not ARRL members. If the League seems to be
carrying out the wishes of its members, this should not be any great
surprise - that's what the hams who pay dues to belong to the ARRL
*expect* them to do.

If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their
fault. It's the 4 out of 5 hams who do not pony up their dues, and
then start telling their division directors to tow the line if they
expect to be re-elected.

There is no real membership/special-interest group
competitor to the ARRL in the United States, so it
doesn't seem that there is any "drive for growth" coming
from such groups.

It's about 30 years too late for that anyway. The gunshot wound to ham
radio's figurative foot was self-inflicted in the mid-1970's when they
turned their backs on no-code licensing then. Now we see the results
every few weeks courtesy of N2EY's postings.

The ARRL pays lip service in its electronic publications, but does
little of substance to foster any serious upturn in the number of
licensed hams beyond its participation in volunteer examining. By that
I mean, while real change is what's needed, the League continues to
oppose that change. Again, though, that seems to be the wishes of its
members, or at least a majority thereof - so again it goes back to the
4 out of 5 hams who aren't League members.

Few manufacturers need the amateur
radio market so it won't be them to any great extent.

The manufacturers can do little to encourage folks to become licensed.
They could advertise in places where non-hams would be exposed to
their products. Kenwood could advertise the TS-850 in Newsweek. People
could get interested. Then they find out that in order to actually use
the damn thing, you not only have to pass the two written tests, but
you have to spend who knows how long learning Morse Code so you can
communicate with the same people in the same places they just finished
chatting with over the Internet, without having to spend a thousand
bucks on the radio, and the idea goes out along with the magazine
before next week's issue even arrives.

Besides, the manufacturers are in business, their business is to sell
radios, they're going to advertise to their potential customers, so
their advertising dollars are going to be spent in a manner consistent
with that.

snip
Ditto.

A lot more is coming for the average citizen if EDN and
Electronic Design and SPECTRUM magazines can be believed.
VoIP is an accomplished fact today, the only real
drawback being some Common Carrier arguments against it.

I can think of some other drawbacks too, but obviously the point still
stands. VoIP has even found its way into the ARS.

The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is
that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure."

In fact, increasingly it is neither.

Rigs aren't getting any cheaper. In an effort to one-up the
competition, the radio manufacturers keep adding more bells and
whistles to their products, and thus adding more dollars to the price
tag. A station consisting of just an entry-level HF transceiver and a
wire antenna, tuner, and power supply will still set one back about a
thousand bucks.

As for being independent from infrastructure, while a ham station can
be temporarily operated on emergency power, eventually, batteries need
recharging. Generators need refueling. Alternative power sources such
as solar power, or maybe a windmill, can be used, but how many average
hams happen to own a windmill? And have you checked out the price tags
attached to solar panels lately? And of course, adding capabilities
that utilize a computer (packet, SSTV, PSK-31, etc.) increases power
consumption considerably.


SOME amateur radio is low cost, yes, but the "independence"
from the infrastructure inhibits a greater utilization of
amateur radio in true emergency work (apart from the after-
the-fact health-and-welfare messaging). Thirty years ago
the "phone patch" was popular in connecting overseas
servicemen with their families in the USA but, now that
the military has the DSN with direct input to the Internet
plus direct connection to stateside telephone networks,
those phone patches are seldom needed; overseas military
people can call home directly from nearly everywhere.

Nevertheless, I still hear MARS ops running morale patches for
servicemen and women. Admittedly, though, I don't hear much of it on
the ham bands anymore.

"Low cost" equipment is highly debateable, even if out-
rageous claims of some are corrected. Really low-cost
HF transceivers HAVE to be used models, some with
their insides "modified." New ones require a kilodollar
across the counter minimum to set up a reasonable
station.

Agreed.

I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing
as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection
by the OT morsemen. :-)

Code testing, perhaps. But, all testing? I can't agree with you there.
There are certain technical requirements relative to an amateur
station which require some basic knowledge on the part of the operator
in order to maintain the station within those requirements. To the
extent that the RF spectrum is a natural resource, the stewardship of
significant portions of that resource in the hands of hams deserves
some indication that an operator has the knowledge to safely operate a
station in accordance with those requirements.

Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around
with the innards. Operators of public safety stations (police, fire,
EMS, etc.), marine VHF radios, GMRS, CB, etc. may not. They have a
factory rep, or a repair shop, do it for them. So do many hams, but
for them it's a matter of choise, for those other guys it's the law.

Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an
SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction.....

Can't say I've had such an experience. If it's anything at
all like old-style facsimile (that I had to run tests on
in 1955), it would be deathly slow in generation for a
teener's normal rapid pace. :-)

Exactly. The reaction the original post was referring to is basically,
"Yawn!" which is the same reaction that will result from any attempt
to show how cool ham radio is by demonstrating that we can do
something over the radio that the kid has already done hundreds of
times using his cell phone, or a PC over the internet. The code test
isn't even a factor. You're showing the kid nothing he hasn't already
seen, and done, before.

I have observed some older teeners at a mall using cell
phones with camera-imaging capability (they were comparing
styles with friends in another mall). Quick, rapid
response, all appearing to know how to use their phones
as expertly as anyone.

There was a big deal made recently over the fact that in a contest
between a couple of very experienced CW operators and a couple of
cell-phone text messaging experts, the CW guys won handily. The
text-messaging folks were quite surprised. The hams looked at it as a
victory of sorts. Which it was. Except it's not going to make kids
trade in their cell phones (which fit in a shirt pocket, run for hours
on a tiny lithium ion battery, is paid for by his parents, requires no
license or testing, and allows him to call anybody anywhere) for a ham
station (which he has to pay for out of his allowance, requires a
license and a testing process, only allows him to call other licensed
hams, and can hardly be used while walking down the middle of the
local mall checking out the cute ass on the bunch of girls walking ten
yards ahead of him!).

We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances.

Sigh...that has been happening since a half century ago.
The miniaturization of nearly everything electronic is
defeating the hammer-and-anvil, big-brute mentality of
some hobbyists.

You check out the effect miniaturization has had on ham equipment,
though, and you see that the state of the art has evolved since half a
century ago. Compare my Kenwood TH-78A or Yaesu FT-100 of today to
what passed for a "portable" radio in 1955.

A REAL problem I see is the attitudes of some in vainly
trying to keep the old paradigms...such as amateurs are
"leading the way in state of the art developments." They
aren't and haven't been since the advent of solid-state
electronics a half century ago. They have to give up their
wish-fulfillment of "greatness in radio" and just continue
to have fun with their radios as a hobby. Nothing wrong
with that and perhaps better oriented mentally to just
enjoy a pastime. [that's what hobbies are]

To a large extent, I agree. It does occur to me, though, that few
hobbies provide the opportunity to do public service work and
contribute to community efforts in disaster preparedness and such.

Nearly 60 years ago I got interested in radio while both
flying model aircraft and being a part-time worker in the
model-hobby industry (Testor Chemical Co., makers of
cement, "dope" the lacquer paint, and balsa wood). Today
the model hobby industry is bigger than ever and the AMA,
the Academy of Model Aeronautics, has a quarter million
members (more than the ARRL ever had). In knowing many
modelers over the years, I've not heard any of them boast
of "advancing the state of the art" in aeronautics nor of
being anything else but hobbyists. The technology of air,
sea, and space has long ago gone FAR beyond the
capabilities of model hobbyists working by themselves.

Well, right...but then, NASA, the USAF, and the USN don't generally
employ these folks as volunteer assistants, either...and it's not
because they sniff too much glue, either.

The same is true for "radio," at least for the MF-HF bands
used by radio amateurs. It is basically a hobby, a fun
pastime done for personal enjoyment, an intellectual
challenge for those who want to get into the theory of
it, but also needing federal regulation due to the nature
of EM propagation and interference mitigation.

I agree on the above. However - If you admit that federal regulation
is needed, why decry "all testing" as you did earlier in your post,
when you stated:

I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing
as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection
by the OT morsemen. :-)

What other method is there, other than testing, for insuring that
those individuals responsible for mitigating potential interference
from their own stations are knowledgeable enough to do so?

73 de John, KC2HMZ