"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with
respect
to the split in their existing membership.

Very much so, I'd agree.

However, outside of their membership
(in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe
that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side
...

What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree
with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you
operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what?

I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I
get from folks, etc.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is
representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think
you are
a totally objective observer...;-)

I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest
hams
were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he
does
not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said
the
same thing. Don't they count?

The ONLY thing that counts

Hold on a sec, Bill.

We've been told that:

- we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS
- (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code
- The future is newcomers and young hams
- The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new
hams but written tests aren't

and the big one:

"the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side"

Now, do these things matter or not?


is the answer to the question: What is the
rational
for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the
requirement from the treaty?

I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.
3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.
4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does
the 20 pages of the NCI petition.

The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated
none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by
pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to
keep any testing of morse.

Sure.

And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look
at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of
"expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that
the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED!

This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become
practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more
homogenized.

This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by
restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the
hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of
any illegal's hands.

"Expert agency", they're called, right?

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs
will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for
them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that
they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to
be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Just where has that been shown and by whom?

It's self evident. Common sense.

FCC considers a Tech to be competent to
design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur
transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any
authorized mode, at full legal power.

But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to
be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all
OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below
30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact,
Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of
four bands.

Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51
MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB,
AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW
and SSB below 30 MHz?
What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so
essential that it MUST be tested?

Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference
between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air
except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a
General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz
but not 3.520 MHz?

The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that.

See above about convincing FCC.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above
30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

You are now arguing privileges, not code testing.

I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement
opens up the same can of worms on the writtens.

Others have already suggested
a need for a different set of licenses and privileges.

Yup - and a lot of those changes are not for the better. But how can
they be defended against?

Jim, you and I have
long agreed
that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a
particular license
class.

Sure. And I see that situation getting worse, not better.


........

ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website,
and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio.

Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things.
Or
they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF
because
she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the
best
HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view.

Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things.

One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the
entry-level is
that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with
their
main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are
not
bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from
nonvoice
modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local
ones.
IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant
ARRL.

Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to
do with license class and privileges being revisted.

It has to do with the patchwork changes made to the license structure.
Our basic system dates from 1951.


73 de Jim, N2EY