wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

Or just lazy people out?

It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
learning it, either.

More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement
was removed years ago?

Yes. In the USA at least.

The number of US hams peaked a few years ago, and is now below what it
was in 2000.

Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991,
the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA
has been continuous.

It was also continuous before the Technician lost its code test.

Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL
licensees.

Actually, as of October 1, 2006, the number of Technicians was 285,709
out of 656,481 US hams. Those are the number of individuals holding
current, unexpired, FCC-issued amateur licenses. Technicians account
for 43.5% of US hams, not 49%.

The Technician class license numbers are twice that
of General class, the next-largest license class.

131, 945 General Class licenses as of the same date as above.

It should be noted, however, that since April 15, 2000, the FCC has
been renewing all Technician Plus licenses as Technicians. Thus, the
Technician class is composed of some hams who have not passed a Morse
Code test, and some who have.

The Technician Plus class numbers are steadily dropping, because that
license is not issued anymore. If the FCC does not change the rules,
there will be no more Technician Plus licenses at all in about 3-1/2
years, because they will all have either expired, upgraded, or been
renewed as Technicians.

Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of
2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003.

??

The current rules went into effect on April 15, 2000.

The peak of 2003 is well documented. Since then the number of US
amateurs has declined to below what it was in 2000.

At
that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all
classes.

That is true.

However, back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20
wpm Morse Code tests. These waivers meant that anyone who could pass 5
wpm could bypass the higher-speed Morse Code tests by obtaining a
doctor's note.

A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old-
timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being
replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio)
licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has
persisted for three years.

It is true that there are more expirations than newcomers.

However, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the decline is due
to the attrition of "older licensees", or the loss of newer hams who
simply let their licenses expire.

For example, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, a significant
number of new amateurs appeared who used amateur radio for
personal/family communications. They were very interested in VHF/UHF
repeaters, autopatch, and related activities. Most got Technician
licenses - with or without Morse Code - because that license gave
access to 2 meter and 440 MHz repeaters.

But with the appearance of inexpensive and ubiquitous cell phones, that
source of new amateurs all but disappeared.

The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the
major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees.

Perhaps.

But consider this:

The growth in the number of US hams from February 1991 to April 2000
was *less* than the growth from December 1981 to February 1991. (Same
amount of time, before and after the Tech lost its code test.) This is
true in both absolute numbers and percentage.

Since the restructuring of April 2000, which reduced both code and
written exams, the number of US hams has actually dropped by over
17,000.

Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY
regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter
olde-tyme amateur radio.

What changes do you suggest, Len, besides the elimination of the code
test?

There may be little incentive for *you* to enter amateur radio, but for
thousands of others, the incentive is there.

It should be noted that in the Readex survey of 1996, the most staunch
pro-code-test age group was the *youngest* amateurs.

Ally that with the huge growth of
the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet
that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications
over that world - and the traditional standards and practices
of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to
newcomers they once had.

Amateur radio is not the internet, and the internet is not amateur
radio. Amateur radio can only survive by offering a unique
communications experience - that is, by doing things that cannot be
done online.

It should be remembered that the growth of cell phones and low-cost
long distance phone service is another factor affecting growth. We will
not see many people getting amateur radio licenses for "honeydew"
purposes - with or without a code test.

Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a
spurt in new licensees.

Perhaps - in the short term.

While such elimination is not a
guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act
to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times.

It should be remembered that the dropping of the Morse Code test for
Technician back in 1991 did not result in long-term growth in numbers.

The reduction of both Morse Code testing and written testing in 2000
did not result in long-term or even medium-term growth. The numbers
grew from 2000 to 2003, then declined to a level below that of 2000.

Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in
regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority
of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group.

What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive. The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

In that time, the number of US amateurs has actually dropped by over
17,000.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

It should be noted that the number 737,938 includes not only those
licenses which were current at the time, but also those which were
expired but in the 2 year grace period. The number of then-current
licenses was about 50,000 lower.

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response.

It's an echo?

Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate.

Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance
radiotelephony by 1906. AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century. The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What part is not?

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.

Why is that "outmoded"? What has replaced it?

Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.

What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

The use of call signs? Signal reports? Using only first names?

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

How would you have amateurs operate?

Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional.

So what's the problem with a standard procedures?

Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs - but that doesn't mean we have no
standards and no procedures. The use of standard procedures makes it
more fun and easier on everyone involved.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s.

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims).

Who pioneered the use of the HF spectrum, Len?

Who first established two-way HF radio contact?

DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago. Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO,

Not really.

GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier,

Well, those things are not common, but they're still around.

GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program).

Yet the predictions are not always correct. Openings happen when no
opening is predicted, and predicted openings do not always happen.

Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

And high-end audio...

So what? Those things are only one part of amateur radio. There's a lot
more.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static.

Of course not. That doesn't mean old things are all bad.

For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW."

The phrase was "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A operators
only". It was used by a now-dead radio amateur who had the callsign
W2OY. He did not use CW - he was an AM-only operator of the 1950s and
1960s.

The phrase is remembered because it was so unusual.

"CW" (aka Morse Code) is popular with many radio amateurs, not just
"old timers".

But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

Is there something wrong with the *use* of Morse Code, Len?

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones.

Actually that number is probably low, considering how many more go into
use every day.

There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes.

Millions?

There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users.

Amateur radio *operators*.

And there lies the difference: Almost all other radio services require
the use of only certified, channelized, no-user-adjustments-possible
equipment. Most of those "millions" or transceivers cited are very low
power and use only a single mode and a few channels. The user has
almost no real control over the operation of the radio. This is most
true in the case of the cell phone/

Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

Maybe for you, Len. Not for hundreds of thousands of radio amateurs.


But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

In other words, Len, you want to tell us what we should like and what
we should not like. What we should enjoy and what we should not enjoy.

What is wrong with live and let live?

wrote:


What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?
elinatly the arcance made in rule Band plans would certainly help
Idlealy begining a tranistion to a licesne scheme of prevedles that
makes sense

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

so what? JJim Crowe was very popular at one time

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

it will howver stop of us from such laughing stocks that will help us
poke out to be seen with being laughed at

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:


What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?
elinatly the arcance made in rule Band plans would certainly help
Idlealy begining a tranistion to a licesne scheme of prevedles that
makes sense

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

so what? JJim Crowe was very popular at one time

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

it will howver stop of us from such laughing stocks that will help us
poke out to be seen with being laughed at


WTF did he just say?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie? My God man/heshe/shemale! Can you not see what a
moron you are? Look at your blog. Get someone with an IQ above the freezing
point of water to help you fix the spelling errors.
accouts of Kosher ham
the sometime idle rambing a Ham that happens to be jewish besxaul and a Ham
radio operator

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:39:33 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie?
what **** Tom


This Markie:


accouts of Kosher ham
the sometime idle rambing a Ham that happens to be jewish besxaul and a Ham
radio operator

"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:39:33 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie?
what **** Tom


This Markie:


accouts(Accounts) of(a) Kosher ham
the(The) sometime(sometimes) idle rambing(ramblings)(of) a Ham that
happens to be jewish besxaul(bisexual) and a Ham radio operator

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended to
write? Idiot!

U-Know-Who wrote:
"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended to
write? Idiot!
obviously you understood completely Tom therefore comuncation was
achieved therefore I butchered nothing at all

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended
to
write? Idiot!
obviously you understood completely Tom therefore comuncation was
achieved therefore I butchered nothing at all


Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.

U-Know-Who wrote:
"

Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.
you lack the power to require anything of me

you also lack the intelegence to understand that fact and you lack any
manners I ivtie you into to my world andwhat do I get instaed of thanks
you I get your puting my loosey spelling on the same plan as Robesons
death threats and both of accusing me of child moletsing

one day maybe you will grow up and get a life but I doubt as you nick
tells you are nameless loser: your wting shows you to be frustrated
school marm type