N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
some snippage


My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.


Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.


Such as?

Okay. Carl's (NCI's?) approach sounds reasonable and should work okay -
even though I disagree with it.

On the other end of the spectrum, the proposal to turn everyone into HF
weenies is just plain stupid in my book.


But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.


Sure. But that's been going on for decades now. Some folks would even
say it is justified because a ham doesn't have to know as much today
to get on the air and avoid breaking the rules.

The times do change, no doubt. It all comes back to my thinking we can
be as adroit as we want to be. On that spectrum, it varies from no test
whatsoever - proven by the many CB'ers who run power amps, to those who
think that a person needs to be an EE to get on the air.

What do WE want? I want the ham to have enough knowledge to get on the
air safely, to realize that he or she can do some nasty things to
themselves and others if they aren't careful. I want the ham to be able
to read instructions and comprehend them. I want them to know at at
least a superficial level just what their rigs are doing. I want the ham
to know where to look up things like band edges and allowable powers on
a band. I want the ham to know that they are expected to act like they
learned manners at some point. I want the ham to know basic theory such
as Ohms law, and very simple antenna design.

Oh, and BTW, I want the ham to know how to communicate at what I
consider the base mode - CW.


This is just my opinion.


For example: How many hams do you know who use barefoot rigs that
require tuneup in order to operate properly? (Not the ATU - the rig
itself). Besides me, that is.

How many do you know who regularly use 100% homebrew stations?

Personally, just you.


some snippage



Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

True. That is one of the reasons that I like the idea of having a bit
of challenge to the tests. I'd wager that those who are willing to put
forth extra effort are more likely to be an asset to the ARS than those
who aren't. All this is on average, and does not apply to the individual
ham.


"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it. Or even most of it. The repeater expert
may be in the dark about wire antennas. The digital folks may be
helpless with power supplies. And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

And how! The idea that we are going to get EE's in here is essentially
meaningless. It should be changed to RF engineers.... and of course the
ones who want to have their hobby also be their vocation. It takes a
special person indeed.



I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all.


Actually, some of them do. For instance, here are some gems from Fred
Maia, W5YI:

- Outlaw all forms of amateur bulletins and one way information
transmissions, INCLUDING CODE PRACTICE, below 30 MHz (1995 petition to
the FCC)

Booooring! And I know why too. Well, I oculd be wrong too. Was W1MAN
transmitting back then?

- Reduce the entry level license to a 20 question written and include
voice privileges on the bands above 20 meters

It's good to see he "retired" as a VEC. He really wanted that job to be
easy.


Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

You get the idea.


All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......


What you're seeing is what I call the "Zen method of design", where
they will never tell you what they want, only what they don't want.

And howaboddit! they don't like whatever I come up with.


Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.



Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.


BINGO!

Which means that the advance must be publicized, affordable, and offer
hams something they want.

Example: Cecil, W5DXP, used to rave about PACTOR-2. I started to look
into it, and discovered that (at the time) implementing it required
not just a shack computer but a $600 dedicated PACTOR 2 box. Which
explains why so few hams use the mode, compared to, say, PSK-31.

Haw! I wonder how many hams use that mode, any stats? It sounds like
some of the EME frequencies noted in QST where they name off all six of
the people who use it!


If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??



The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?


"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

I'd sure think so.

- Mike KB3EIA -