"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed
there
for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO
THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight
to
General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two
meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech.
I
forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And
I
KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will
explain why I think as I do.

Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was
saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn
those who chose not to do what you did.

- Mike KB3EIA -


You really think that just because someone learns CW, they have "more"
interest in ham radio? You really do, Mike?

Oh well...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:


I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed

there

for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO
THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight

to

General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two
meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech.

I

forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And

I

KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will
explain why I think as I do.

Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was
saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn
those who chose not to do what you did.

- Mike KB3EIA -



You really think that just because someone learns CW, they have "more"
interest in ham radio? You really do, Mike?

Oh well...

As long as it is one of the requirements, most certainly it is! I don't
care if a person ever uses Morse code aftward, but as long as it is a
test requirement.....

Take my case. I'm a pretty smart guy, despite a person here who thinks
I'm a hockey puck. But picking up Morse code was really difficult for
me. But I really wanted that ticket, so I learned it. The Written parts
were a breeze.

Now let's say I figured I'd just wait till the Morse requirement went
away before I went to the trouble of testing. That would have meant that
I was interested, but not interested enough to study for and take the
test - I was just as interested in waiting.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY wrote):
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in
1992.

But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began
in 1990. Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5
wpm. And there were/are lots of accomodations available.

Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went
away.

The ITU allowed no-code licensing above 420 MHz in 1947 and above 30 MHz
in 1967, I think.

I think if you check, it was 1000 MHz in 1947 and 144 MHz in 1967. But the
principle is the same.

The first no-code licences were actually issued in
Australia in 1952, and the UK followed in 1963.

Japan in 1952, as well.

Of course, this time I don't think it will be another 50 years before
element 1 will be dropped!

Not even 50 weeks, probably.

The reason is that the ARRL did a 180 degree
turn on code testing, which is what led to the no-code Tech. The FCC would
have allowed no-code above 220 in the 70s. They proposed it and the league
talked them out of it! The ARRL would have us beleive otherwise, but it's
all on record.

WHOA! Hold on a second there!

First off, The earliest "serious" proposal for a nocodetest license in the USA
was
in 1975. FCC wanted to create a "dual ladder" license system, with no less than
seven classes of license! This was only a few years after the Incentive
Licensing mess of the '60s. (If you think people are ticked off about the code
test issue, you shoulda been around back then.)

As part of this seven-class system, there would have been a "Communicator"
license with extremely limited VHF/UHF privs and no code test.

The response in the amateur community (not just ARRL leadership) back then was
a resounding NO! FCC scrapped the idea.

Then in 1983, FCC started making noises about a nocodetest license, and again
the response from the amateur community was a resounding NO!.

But in 1989-1990, FCC tried yet a third time and this time made it clear they
really wanted a nocodetest amateur license. At the same time, they were
proposing to reallocate 220 to other services. The response from the amateur
community was no longer a resounding NO - it was more like "well, if the
license has limited VHF-UHF privileges, maybe it would be OK". Specifically,
feedback to the question "would you support or oppose a limited-privileges
VHF/UHF only license with no code test?" was divided 50-50 yes-no.

So the ARRL BoD proposed a compromise: Create a new class of license that would
focus on 220, increasing its usage. (The ARRL proposal did not include 2 meter
privs for the new license). FCC saw through the plan and simply dropped the
code test from the Tech. They compromised by only reallocating 220-222, not the
whole band.

The recent turn-about in ARRL BoD policy was partly the result of a meeting of
Region 3 IARU societies back about 2000. At that meeting, ARRL found itself to
be the lone member supporting retention of S25.5. It became clear that
"resistance was useless" and so the policy was quietly changed at the next BoD
meeting from "support" to "no opinion".

None of this is secret or denied by the ARRL. It's all been in the pages of QST
and on the website.

Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of those
changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s. There
was an initial surge when the changes happened, that's all.

It made less difference than it would have in, say, the 70s, and no-code
HF now will make less difference now than it would have in 90s, much less
the 70s.

MAybe - we'll never know for sure.

I'm not saying our hobby is dying, but interest seems to be
declining.

I mean no disrespect, Alun, but in the 35+ years I've been a ham, I've heard
that and similar reports. None of them ever came true.

What HAS changed is that some of the reasons people used to become hams have
disappeared. If all someone wants is electronic communication, there are lots
of other options, most of which either didn't exist or were prohibitively
expensive only a few decades ago.

Example: In 1972 I knew a girl whose father wrote for one of the big local
papers as TV critic. He had a Model 19 teletype machine in the dining room,
complete with paper tape setup and telephone line interface. He'd write his
columns, then punch a tape and send it to the office. He only went into the
office once a week or so. Today all he'd need is a laptop and a phone line,
costing a tiny fraction of what the Model 19 cost.

It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license
totals have increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000
by 2001.

If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely
doubt it.

I agree. There will just be a surge in interest for a while.

Which disproves the idea that the code test is some sort of "barrier" to a
license.

Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way
back in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would
say, isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.).

You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some
parts of the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore.

Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in
Internet use, which has changed the landscape.

Which would have happened regardless of S25.5.

To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will
continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done
with the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance
telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the folks
who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and '90s now
have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running routine
phone patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a minute.

Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with
discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any
financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or
it's just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation.

And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will
not change any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection have
become a practical necessity in most people's lives today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY wrote):
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in
1992.

But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began
in 1990. Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5
wpm. And there were/are lots of accomodations available.

Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went
away.

The ITU allowed no-code licensing above 420 MHz in 1947 and above 30
MHz in 1967, I think.

I think if you check, it was 1000 MHz in 1947 and 144 MHz in 1967. But
the principle is the same.


I think 1000 MHz was in 1937. I left that out because no actual mew no-
code licences were introduced between 1937 and 1947 (the small matter of
WW2 got in the way!).

All the no-code licences in various countries introduced after 1947 and
before 1967 were originally for above 420 MHz, as permitted in Atlantic
City in 1947.

I am going from memory, but I think that I have that correct.

The first no-code licences were actually issued in
Australia in 1952, and the UK followed in 1963.

Japan in 1952, as well.

Of course, this time I don't think it will be another 50 years before
element 1 will be dropped!

Not even 50 weeks, probably.

The reason is that the ARRL did a 180 degree
turn on code testing, which is what led to the no-code Tech. The FCC
would have allowed no-code above 220 in the 70s. They proposed it and
the league talked them out of it! The ARRL would have us beleive
otherwise, but it's all on record.

WHOA! Hold on a second there!

First off, The earliest "serious" proposal for a nocodetest license in
the USA was
in 1975.

Which is in the 70s, like I said, right?

FCC wanted to create a "dual ladder" license system, with no
less than seven classes of license! This was only a few years after the
Incentive Licensing mess of the '60s. (If you think people are ticked
off about the code test issue, you shoulda been around back then.)

As part of this seven-class system, there would have been a
"Communicator" license with extremely limited VHF/UHF privs and no code
test.


Above 220, just as I said. I can't recall the proposed power limit or any
other restrictions. That is 28 years ago, after all.

The response in the amateur community (not just ARRL leadership) back
then was a resounding NO! FCC scrapped the idea.

Then in 1983, FCC started making noises about a nocodetest license, and
again the response from the amateur community was a resounding NO!.

But in 1989-1990, FCC tried yet a third time and this time made it
clear they really wanted a nocodetest amateur license. At the same
time, they were proposing to reallocate 220 to other services. The
response from the amateur community was no longer a resounding NO - it
was more like "well, if the license has limited VHF-UHF privileges,
maybe it would be OK". Specifically, feedback to the question "would
you support or oppose a limited-privileges VHF/UHF only license with no
code test?" was divided 50-50 yes-no.

So the ARRL BoD proposed a compromise: Create a new class of license
that would focus on 220, increasing its usage. (The ARRL proposal did
not include 2 meter privs for the new license). FCC saw through the
plan and simply dropped the code test from the Tech. They compromised
by only reallocating 220-222, not the whole band.

The recent turn-about in ARRL BoD policy was partly the result of a
meeting of Region 3 IARU societies back about 2000. At that meeting,
ARRL found itself to be the lone member supporting retention of S25.5.
It became clear that "resistance was useless" and so the policy was
quietly changed at the next BoD meeting from "support" to "no opinion".

None of this is secret or denied by the ARRL. It's all been in the
pages of QST and on the website.


Perhaps they don't deny it now, but at the time they gave out the
impression that the no-code Tech was something they had wrested from the
FCC with great difficulty, which doesn't seem to square with the events of
the 70s and 80s atall.

Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of
those changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s.
There was an initial surge when the changes happened, that's all.

It made less difference than it would have in, say, the 70s, and
no-code HF now will make less difference now than it would have in 90s,
much less the 70s.

MAybe - we'll never know for sure.

I'm not saying our hobby is dying, but interest seems to be declining.

I mean no disrespect, Alun, but in the 35+ years I've been a ham, I've
heard that and similar reports. None of them ever came true.

What HAS changed is that some of the reasons people used to become hams
have disappeared. If all someone wants is electronic communication,
there are lots of other options, most of which either didn't exist or
were prohibitively expensive only a few decades ago.

Example: In 1972 I knew a girl whose father wrote for one of the big
local papers as TV critic. He had a Model 19 teletype machine in the
dining room, complete with paper tape setup and telephone line
interface. He'd write his columns, then punch a tape and send it to the
office. He only went into the office once a week or so. Today all he'd
need is a laptop and a phone line, costing a tiny fraction of what the
Model 19 cost.

It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license
totals have increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000
by 2001.

If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely
doubt it.

I agree. There will just be a surge in interest for a while.

Which disproves the idea that the code test is some sort of "barrier"
to a license.

Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way
back in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would
say, isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.).

You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some
parts of the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore.

Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in
Internet use, which has changed the landscape.

Which would have happened regardless of S25.5.

To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will
continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done
with the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance
telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the
folks who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and
'90s now have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running
routine phone patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a
minute.

Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with
discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any
financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or
it's just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation.

And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will
not change any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection
have become a practical necessity in most people's lives today.

73 de Jim, N2EY




73 de Alun, N3KIP

PS: I was licenced as G8VUK (no-code!) in 1980, got my current call in
1992, and passed element 1C in 1993. I have been around a little longer
than my call would indicate.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW"
folks,
the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put
the
groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the
argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those
of us
who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did not
want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.


You are speaking of the written exam, and I think it should be made tougher
and harder to pass. But, I don't think there is a necessity to "test"
knowledge of a mode.


Let's make the case:


Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike


Well, OK, but replace it with lots more tought stuff.


Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their
rigs.

Strike


DITTO


Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike


DITTO


Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations,
who needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Ditto, ditto, etc. I think the written part of the exam should have
regulatory questions, and a lot of them. I also think the written part of
the exam should include more than just Part 97 of the R&R...what about the
1934 Act? Lots more on that.

The written exam should include a great deal of questions on the safety
issues related the operating of amateur equipment and antennas, etc.

Much tougher written and wish there was a way not to have it published.
But, that's me. YMMV

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the
"pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities.
(It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.)
However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may
be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to
learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did
not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.


I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about
Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the modes.
What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_ mode. To
take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and work someone
via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only practical test, that
wouldn't be right either, as it would be an unbalanced requirement
relative to all the other things you can do in the hobby. If you want to
have a practical test, how about soldering? At least it's not mode-
specific.


You are speaking of the written exam, and I think it should be made
tougher and harder to pass. But, I don't think there is a necessity to
"test" knowledge of a mode.


Let's make the case:


Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike


Well, OK, but replace it with lots more tought stuff.


Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their rigs.

Strike


DITTO


Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike


DITTO


Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations, who
needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Ditto, ditto, etc. I think the written part of the exam should have
regulatory questions, and a lot of them. I also think the written part
of the exam should include more than just Part 97 of the R&R...what
about the 1934 Act? Lots more on that.

The written exam should include a great deal of questions on the safety
issues related the operating of amateur equipment and antennas, etc.

Much tougher written and wish there was a way not to have it published.
But, that's me. YMMV

Kim W5TIT

"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the
"pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities.
(It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.)
However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may
be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to
learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did
not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.


I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about
Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the modes.
What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_ mode. To
take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and work someone
via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only practical test, that
wouldn't be right either, as it would be an unbalanced requirement
relative to all the other things you can do in the hobby. If you want to
have a practical test, how about soldering? At least it's not mode-
specific.


Actually I agree with having a soldering test. I consider it a basic skill
that all hams should have at least to the extent of soldering a PL259
connector to coax and demonstrating that they have achieved continuity and
no shorts.

The difference between CW and satellite is that CW is commonly used (about
50% of hams use CW some to all of the time) and it is cheap to use.
Satellite is uncommon and expensive. In addition, it takes actually having
a basic, minimal skill level at CW to judge whether one wishes to pursue it
to a useful level thus the prospective ham should be required to learn a
basic minimum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
.com:


"Alun Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the
"pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities.
(It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.)
However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it
may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose
not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did
not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.


I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about
Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the
modes. What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_
mode. To take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and
work someone via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only
practical test, that wouldn't be right either, as it would be an
unbalanced requirement relative to all the other things you can do in
the hobby. If you want to have a practical test, how about soldering?
At least it's not mode- specific.


Actually I agree with having a soldering test. I consider it a basic
skill that all hams should have at least to the extent of soldering a
PL259 connector to coax and demonstrating that they have achieved
continuity and no shorts.

The difference between CW and satellite is that CW is commonly used
(about 50% of hams use CW some to all of the time) and it is cheap to
use. Satellite is uncommon and expensive. In addition, it takes
actually having a basic, minimal skill level at CW to judge whether one
wishes to pursue it to a useful level thus the prospective ham should
be required to learn a basic minimum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



Well, Dee, CW isn't used by me, although I have never actually worked
anyone through a satellite either. I question whether as many as 50%
really use CW to any great extent. It's always the same few people in any
club who come out to work CW at field day, and they have never been close
to 50% in any ham club I've belonged to.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to

learn

CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.


The issue is that morse has lost the need for exclusive
testing as a separate test element. Your analogy isn't equivalent
to boring school classes because the goal of those classes is and was
within the objectives of providing a complete education.

I might beg to differ. I took many classes that were just about
irrelevant to just about anything. They were mandated to be taken
though. And that to me sounds just about like the arguments aginst Morse
code testing.


FCC
licensing is not, however, the means to mandate a specific
skill capability for one mode.


For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out

of

an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend

to

because "it's just not me."

But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to
jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant,
but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of
hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a
problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn
the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case,
the requirement is the Morse test.


Sorry, you are expanding a lack of interest in morse as
a defining element as to one's overall interest in
amateur radio. That is simply untrue. There are thousands of
hams that have ZERO interest in morse, many have even
passed the tests to advance, yet they are excellent hams.

No I am not! I'm saying that if you don't learn the prescribed items,
you are not all that interested.

Let's take the hot button Morse code away from the topic for a second,
and use the example posted by some other person here recently. In his
post, he mentioned that some Service buddies who already know Morse code
would take the ARS tests as a way of getting off base and for a change
of pace for a day. They did well on the Morse part of the test, but with
one apparent exception, failed the written exam.

Learning the written portions of the exam was not all that important to
them. After all, they were just doing this for a lark.

They were not really all that interested in getting thier ticket.

People who took the time to study and learn for the *written* portion
of the test had more interest in being a ham than those who did notwant
to take the time to study for the written portion of the test.


It is exactly the same thing. I've been careful to point out that my
argument is completely separate from whether Morse should be tested at all.


Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative
indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio.

It is if you have to pass a test for it before access.


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim wrote:

Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to
learn
CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

Kim,

Have you *ever* had the experience of "having to" try something you
thought you wouldn't like, and finding out you really enjoyed it?

Do you know anyone who has had such an experience?

We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.

I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for a
real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I don't
need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School
Diploma, or better, to get by.

That reasoning works to support Mike's argument. If a high school
diploma is a practical necessity, why should it require ANY
non-essentials? Those nonessentials could be considered arbitrary,
capricious, irrelevant, discriminatory, hazing, etc. OTOH, since a ham
license is not a necessity, it can require all sorts of stuff that
some would say is nonessential.

For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out
of
an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend
to
because "it's just not me."

But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to
jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant,
but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of
hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a
problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn
the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case,
the requirement is the Morse test.

Not really a good analogy, because in order to parachute you have to
jump out of, or off of, something.

I don't have a problem with the CW requirement for an amateur ticket on its
face. However, if its primary purpose is that of "filtering" people from
the hobby, as many attitudes seem to demonstrate, then I am all about
getting the requirement outta here.

I think what really bothers some folks about the code test is the fact
that it acts as a "Great Equalizer". Very few prospective hams already
know the code, which means that, when starting out to get a license,
the Ph.D. in EE is placed on the same playing field as the elementary
school kid. It can't be learned (by most people) by reading a book or
watching a video, or picked up in bits and pieces here and there.
Guessing doesn't help you pass it.

Also, once you learn it, the code is extremely useful in amateur
radio. Particularly HF/MF amateur radio.

I do not believe that a knowledge of CW
makes one any better a ham than any other.

I think it does. Maybe not the test itself alone, but the USE of the
mode. It's a useful skill for hams to have. That doesn't mean it MUST
be tested, however.

I also don't believe, as you
mention later in this post, that one's interest level is important to this
hobby.

So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and do
make
the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are not
interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not try
to
see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough?

If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right
and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however.

At least not right now, eh?

You got a date in The Pool yet? (see the thread by that name)

If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they
don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the
effort.

But, who dictates that "interest" is a necessity for this hobby/avocation?

The FCC, among others. If someone is interested in the ARS, but does
not bother to get a license because they don't like taking (written)
tests or studying for same, then they are not as interested as someone
who does make the effort.

I don't care about someone's interest level. There are, what Jim/N2EY(?),
650,000+ amateurs in this country alone.

686,802 as of yesterday. ;-)

But how many of them are active?

Of them, there are numbers of
every kind of thinking and interest level, right? I don't care about
someone's "interest." I care that once they are a licensed amateur they
conduct themselves within the parameters of the FCC's R&R.

OK, fine - now how do we assure that? Look at the enforcement actions
by FCC - hams of all license classes being cited for doing dumb
things. Each and every one of them had to pass a written test - in
most cases, several written tests. Yet they break the rules, and in
most cases the violations are not technical things like a misadjusted
or broken rig. Instead, most of the violations I read about today are
"operating" violations - jamming, cussing, failure to ID, operation
outside of one's license privileges, etc. Really basic stuff that was
covered at the Novice level.

Yet almost all of that stuff happens using voice modes, rather than CW
or data modes. There must be reasons for the enormous disparity in
behavior.

That is all that is required.

So how do we get it?

73 de Jim, N2EY