From: John Kasupski on Mon 17 Oct 2005 23:37

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.

We agree...and so do thousands and thousands of others. :-)

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).

In 1975 there was only ARPANET tying in dozens of locations
containing mainframes (and a very few minicomputers)...the
BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) were being experimented with on
a very small scale and the Internet would not be opened to the
public until 16 years later in 1991. Radio amateurs had
"access" to the FCC only through the United States Post Office.

In 1975 the ARRL had a legal firm in DC on retainer and acted
as the "representative" of U.S. radio amateurs. This
"representation" was little more than a minor dictatorship
of self-proclaimed "representatives" enjoying control over all
those individual radio amateurs who did not want to or could
not (probably due to time or intimidation of going up against
government officials) directly access the federal government.

ARRL "representation" amounted to the ARRL telling the feds
and amateur radio members that a no-code "communicator class"
license was no good for them. With so little input from
individual radio amateurs, the FCC believed the ARRL was the
"representative" and acceded to the ARRL's wishes.

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.

The 1975-1980 period was also a high point in the explosion
of new integrated circuits, newer transistors, and an opening
up of new areas of electronics hobby activity that had little
or no relation to amateur radio. The communications
satellites were beginning to be used for worldwide
communication and there were breakthroughs aplenty in many
areas of electronics. Technically-inclined folks now had
the first of the microcomputer SYSTEMS that they could afford
and control. It was a terrific time of newness in a different
kind of communications, that of direct person-to-person
contact. Bulletin Board Systems took off worldwide, grew and
prospered and practical futurists were planning the Internet.

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.

30 years ago (again in the 1975 time frame), most of my
contemporaries in electronics engineering did NOT get into
that field through amateur radio. It was just fascinating
enough to them to get into and they did. This was the time
of very serious advancements in the state of all electronics.
While the computer industry began exploding in size and
capability, so did a lot of other areas in electronics and
with them came the people with interests in all of that.
The old paradigms of the 1930s (not to mention the mindsets
of the ultra-conservatives of "radio") did not apply to
the brave new world that came 40 years after.

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.

I got access to the RCA corporate computer network in 1973
after being able to use an HP 9100 programmable desk
calculator for some formidable problem solving. Those old
mainframes of 30 years ago PALE in comparison to the speed
and memory and peripheral power of today's desktops and
laptops! Clock rate of those mainframes was maximum at
around 20 MHz 30 years ago but today it is 3 GHz with a RAM
access rate of 200 MHz! Today I can hold a 250 GByte hard
disk with two fingers yet would need two people to help me
hold the "cake platter" containers for 500 MBytes worth of
mass-memory storage of the 1970s.

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.

That's a bit severe, John. Having "one's own radio station"
is FUN, a personal enjoyment, an interesting hobby. So is
model railroading, Civil War reenactoring, and stamp
collecting...just as the new hobby areas of robotics and
general electronic gadgetry are FUN for the participants.

A problem occurs when those interested in on-off keying CW
HF radio take themselves too seriously, saying they are
some kind of "ultimate" radio skill individuals and such
radiotelegraphic skills are "needed by the nation." They've
been stuck in their long-ago brainwashed period of mental
conditioning that they can't really see beyond their own
immediate interests...or egos. Those that want to do
competitive contesting have personal enjoyment of that niche
area (even though it is NOT the "sport" of physical
athletics). However, some of them have glorified that niche
activity of the hobby into being some kind of all-around
"champions" of a hobby interest and that isn't descriptive
of the hobby in general.

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.

The Purists in ham radio (those still in Belief of the
standards and practices of the 1930s) will decry such
new-fangled notions as "not being 'real' amateur radio."
Just as radiotelegraphy skill is a "must" for all hams,
a bit of pure mental conditioning done long ago.


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.

Perhaps. :-) ENJOYMENT on a personal level is not some kind
of "sin." At any age. Such is NOT immaturity...but a few
folks take their seriousness far too seriously and demand that
all "work hard (and long)" to be "successful" in achieving OLD
goals.

Fromthat 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.

Agreement 100%! Problem that I see is those individuals have
so identified with their OWN goals and the imprinted "standards"
of others telling them what to do, that they see themselves
ranging from "role models" to absolute judges of what all MUST
do. What they don't realize is that those old standards and
practices did NOT suddenly arrive on the amateur radio scene
from a divine source...they EVOLVED during the beginning of
radio. Yet, inexplicably, those standards and practices "must"
be retained WITHOUT any benefit for FURTHER evolving! :-)


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.

I question that the "CB behavior" is "bad" in any form. :-)
It is only against the OLD HAM STANDARDS of strict,
absolute maintenance of approved old-style procedure and
protocol of AMATEURS. What these purists don't (or can't)
understand is that ham procedure and protocol would be
laughed at by some other radio services. The professionals
in radiotelegraphy already bestowed the "ham" pejorative on
amateurs long ago; some old-timer hams enjoy playing the
part of using "professional conduct" yet don't realize how
they got their moniker. :-)

It's difficult to be emotional at 10 words per minute CW. :-)


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.

Political views on OTHER things aside, the USA has so
MANY international communications activities going that
it would be international political disaster to ignore
agreement with ITU-R radio regulations. They MUST agree
in order to keep the EM environment open; disregarding
it would upset all common communications with others.
Don't forget that a chaotic, unregulated EM environment
would impact US just as much as the USA could impact
others by no following regulatory agreements.


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.

Many think that the ARRL can do no wrong. They get very
disturbed if Big Brother is described negatively. :-)


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.

The ARRL ought to quit playing at it being a "representative
body" for radio amateurs. Its officials seem to get a kick
out of controling the membership. Control is power. But,
they are "official" and say so. :-)

If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their
fault.

It is ABSOLUTELY 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.

Disagree. There is NO federal regulation that says U.S.
radio amateurs MUST belong to some organization. Ergo,
they don't have to "pony up any dues."

Who says those "division directors" have to "tow any line?"
They are NOT governed by any federal laws regarding
"representation," have NO checks-and-balances inherent to
the federal or state governments. A private membership
organization is NOT some branch or agency of the federal
government...even though the ARRL loves to play at that.


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.

James Miccolis' postings just repeat what another private
organization does in tabulating publicly-available federal
government databases. [no one "checks his work"...:-) ]

Ah, but the ARRL decreed to all [USA] radio amateurs on
what they "should' think back 30 years ago. Ergo, they ARE
responsible for not attracting more members than they have.

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.

You are ignoring all those (who can't be counted) who are NOT
YET licensed. The ARRL is trying its damndest to CONTROL what
newcomers are required to do to get their license. The ARRL
just doesn't have that sort of "right." Finally, with the
opening of the Internet and all USA government agencies getting
on the 'net, the federal government isn't buying into a lot of
what the ARRL says or demands.


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.

Disagree strongly based on a century of marketing practices
in the world. Manufacturers CAN do MUCH to "get folks
interested" in just about anything. Advertising is BIG
BUSINESS and an essential part of marketing practices.

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.

Tsk, the morsemen elitists state that the USA already has
a no-code-test license class for amateur radio. "Not a
problem" for newbies they imply. :-)


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.

Ah, but the elitist morsemen keep on claiming that morse is
the epitome of radio skills and infinetly superior to just
"grabbing a mike and yakking." :-)

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.

Ah, but one in here has shown us a single digital photo of
an amateur radio HF transceiver that cost only "$100!" He
built it himself. Who can argue against him? :-)


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.

Code testing WITH all the other subject matter testing.
That's what the "companionship" means.

The standard morsemen argument is that "if code testing is
dropped, it is the 'same' as dropping all testing." Not so,
but they keep on with that rationale.


Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around
with the innards.

That's only because of the way the LAW is written NOW. That
could be gone in a flash with a single R&O.

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.

Not entirely true since a Commercial license allows them
(legally) to do so. In broadcasting (now referred to as
"mass media") it's possible to "mess with innards" a lot
without a single legal license.


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.

Ah, but I've been told otherwise. Why, even in here, some
elitist morsemen have regaled us with stories of Field Day
and the "interest" generated by those skilled morsemen in
communicating by morse code! :-)


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.

It was? Maybe I should watch Jay Leno more often and "learn
about radio communications?" :-)

I'm still waiting for the "showdown" between "expert" morsemen
and some ancient 60 WPM teleprinters run by "non-expert"
teleprinter operators. Say, over a continuous 24-hour period.
As it was a half century ago. Offhand, I'd say that the
teleprinters would win out now as they did back then. :-)

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!).

It's not? Awwww.... :-)


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.

Well, getting an amateur radio license opens one up to some
really FINE areas of self-proclamation of "being of service"
and even "saving lives!" Great for wish-fulfillment. However,
I still seriously doubt that most radio amateurs got their
ham license to "be of service to their country." :-)


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.

Sorry, but one doesn't "employ" "volunteers." :-)

If you've followed the developments of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles) you would have seen that they evolved from model
radio controlled aircraft. Such model builders and their
companies contracted with the DoD on prototype UAVs.

"Glue sniffing" was not a standard practice a half century
ago and NOT a social problem. Today, the model hobby
industry doesn't use the same acetate and nitrate base
glues near as much, preferring to go with epoxies and the
cyanacrylic ("crazy glue") varieties.

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. :-)

As I said earlier, John, I did not "decry 'all testing'" but was
using the elitist morsemen's so-called connection (the "companion-
ship") of code testing WITH all other testing...and their saying
that "dropping the code test is 'the same' as dropping all
testing."

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?

More "mind control?" :-) Peer pressure? :-)

"Make more laws?" That's always a simplistic argument by those
who won't have to take any tests...just like the elitist morse-
man can keep on demanding that newcomers take those code tests.
One can make the amateur radio regulations (Part 97, Title 47
C.F.R.) far more draconian than they are. Currently, Part 97 is
one of the smaller Parts in Title 47 C.F.R. In one way, the
recent versions (prior to the 2000 Restructuring) WAS more
draconian with six license classes (there could be 60 or even
600 of those), three kinds of code test rates, all sorts of
sub-divided bands, and absolute retention of everything ever
transmitted using new modes such as Spread Spectrum. Is that
the kind of thing you meant?

Now there are only three classes, one code test rate, and the
VEC QPC gets to decide on ALL questions and answers (no more
sub-divided subject numbers) of any written test. There still
are the minutely-detailed "bandplans" plus the "new" 60m
"channels" on HF (good going, ARRL, "big boost" for the HFers).

As it was in 1934, so it is in 2005...the FCC is NOT any sort
of academic institution. It doesn't "teach" anything in the
way of all amateurs being responsible for mitigation or even
proper operation. Who and what teaches radio amateurs to BE
responsible is up to others. FCC regulations are expected to
be obeyed. [apparently they expect that six-year-olds can
always obey and be responsible to adult laws] Licensing is
only ONE tool of radio regulation. It was never a "diploma"
of accomplishment and it is never a 100-percent guarantee of
legal operation by anyone...although some fervently believe
that. :-)

"Testing" for a license grant is just part of the FCC's
regulatory toolbox. It is largely a legal formality and
doesn't guarantee anything other than an applicant having
completed - and passed - a particular test. It doesn't
guarantee anything more than a hunting license guarantees
all hunting within season or that a driver's license
guarantees a drive will always obey traffic laws and never
hurt anyone with a motor vehicle. On the other hand, if
there were NO testing, then there would be NO licenses to
grant and no amateur would have a piece of official paper
(suitable for framing) that allowed them to feel more
important than others for having accomplished that. :-)

Feel free to extrapolate "what I 'meant'" from the last two
paragraphs. I'm sure someone will...and they will be wrong.