On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article ,
(Vshah101) writes:

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material.

Vipul:

If that is so, then they can't be hams, because they never would have
passed the theory part of the written tests, would they?

One word: Bash.

Naturally, this overlooks the fact that virtually every technical advance
created within the ARS has traditionally been achieved by hams who
also met the existing licensing requirements -- including Morse code
proficiency at up to 20 WPM.

And when's the last major technical advance that came from the ARS
rather than the military or industry? Hmmm...about the same time that
incentive licensing got started! What a coincidence...or is it?


Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's level.

Yes, indeed, the technical knowledge requirements are lower now than they
were under the previous, more challenging and comprehensive standards of
the Pre-Restructuring Era.

Why? Because there are no more 13- and 20-WPM code tests?

Must be, because the material in the question pools now is pretty much
the same material that was in there before restructuring. It's
organized somewhat differently, but it's still the same basic
stuff...same cards shuffled in a different order. Same game being
played with those cards, too. Only thing different is that you don't
seem to like the hand you've been dealt this time around.

Can't win 'em all, Larry.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code.

The fact that you, personally, don't like "code" doesn't serve as a very
compelling argument to eliminate the requirement.

Agreed.

However, in this
New Age of a generally dumbed-down society, that's all it took!

What?

Oh, yes, of course! Vipul got WRC to reqrite S.25 singlehandedly, all
by himself, nobody else had anything to do with it. All the nations
that are signatories to the treaty got together and changed the
international requirement on his say-so alone. Stunning feat of world
leadership on his part...now if we could only get him to go to the UN
and argue on behalf of world peace.....

Another reason is image. It shows that you put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

Unfortunately for you, your circumscription of Morse code proficiency as a
"worthless pursuit" is no more than a highly subjective and flagrantly
self-serving evaluation made by a person with no qualification to render
such a judgment. I challenge you to provide some documentary evidence
that knowledge of the Morse code is somehow detrimental to the "image"
of amateur radio operators.

Picture the local ham radio club at their Field Day setup in a local
public park. Along comes some members of the general public curious
about what's going on. The club's PIO does his job, hands out the
literature from ARRL that talks about working through satellites using
handheld equipment, about digital modes using computers, about packet,
about disaster preparedness.

Then he takes them over to the radios and there sits a small group of
guys with headsets on (or worse, without headsets on and bitching at
everybody to be quiet so they can hear) doing basically the same thing
they did over hardwired telegraph systems 130 years ago.

We tell people we're on the cutting edge of technology, then put our
best foot forward with something that's almost as old as dinosaur
dung...but doesn't smell quite as bad.

Said members of the general public, knowing a hypocrite when they see
one, whip out their can of BS repellant as they beat a hasty retreat
from the area before their conversation can arouse the ire of the CW
ops again. As they're getting into their car, one remarks, "We could
have seen the same thing down at the railroad museum!"

Moral of the story: as is the case with fishing, your success rate is
largely determined by what you use for bait. We're using the wrong
bait. Our success rate at attracting new hams is the documentary
evidence, and we've ignored it long enough.

This is not an argument against learning Morse and encouraging people
to develop CW operating skills. However, we can do that by promoting
the merits of CW *after* we get them to bite first on the more modern
technology that we routinely use in the ARS.

I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as difficult.

Name one. Just one. Please relate how this skill to which you refer
compares with a proven, effective communications skill such as Morse
code proficiency as applied within the ARS. Kindly leave out the usual
apples-to-oranges comparisons to military or commercial radio services.

He didn't say communications skills, just skills.

1. What's more difficult to learn - copying Morse at 5 WPM or flying
the space shuttle?

2. How many current astronauts are no-code Technicians and how many
are Extras that took a 20 WPM code test?

Go ahead, tell us the no-code astronauts are lazy because they can't
meaure up to your standards WRT using CW. Maybe if enough of them hear
you, you can be singlehandedly responsible for putting an end to ham
radio operation from space.

Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse code.

Again, this is a judgment that you are not qualified to make. The proof
is your own admission that you cannot use the Morse code. If you could,
you may have an entirely different perspective.

How's he or anyone else going to use Morse code in real life? Outside
of the ARS, who else is still using it?

I think we really need to examine this concept of "technical skill" within
the Amateur Radio Service, and find out just precisely what is meant when
that term is bandied about. It has always been one of the favorite arguments
of the NCTA, but actual experience has shown that new hams who come
into the ARS under relaxed licensing standards tend to be less technically
involved than ever -- to the point where they barely show enough curiosity
to even thoroughly read and understand the operator's manuals for their
off-the-shelf equipment. The concept of "Elmering" has transmuted from
a process of taking a newcomer through the basics of electrical theory up
to the building and operation of simple station equipment, eventually
advancing to more complex projects, and even inspiring formal education
in electronics, to simply showing the New Age No-Code Tech which button
to push to make his HT work.

And to help right this wrong, you're going to volunteer to show up at
the next club meeting and show everybody how to construct a modern,
state-of-the-art, all-mode, all-band transciever? Very good!

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

Then why is it that guys who have been hams for fifty years sometimes
need help programming a new 2m handheld?

Whatever new people enter the ARS in the no-code testing future certainly
face a daunting task of proving the claims of those who have, throughout
the code testing debate, attempted to link Morse code knowledge with
technical ignorance. We shall see what the future holds.

You yourself are linking Morse code knowledge with technical
ignorance! You just said yourself one paragraph earlier (and I cut and
paste again here):

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

As soon as a no-code Technician learns something (anything at all)
about radio, he or she has immediately disproven your claim. He/she
has advanced his/her own technical knowledge without benefit of any
knowledge of Morse code. Which means that either:

1. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years already knew everything they needed to know to
pass the writtens and only needed to learn the code in order to
upgrade, OR

2. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years and still holds a license is documented evidence
in the FCC license database that the neither the possession nor the
lack of code proficiency has any bearing on technical
proficiency...which is pretty much what FCC concluded in 1999. It's
now 2003, so you're about four years behind the rest of us.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ