ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Elimination of the code requirement may actually cause a loss in the ham
ranks, if not in numbers at least in activity. The elimination will
probably coincide with the early part of the bottom of the current sunspot
cycle. People will upgrade and quite a few will be so disappointed at the
poor activity that they will become quite inactive on HF and this
disappointment could spill over and affect their activity on VHF/UHF.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

A very cogent observation, Dee. The irony is, at the low side of a
solar cycle, when the geomagnetic activity subsides along with the
solar flux, the use of CW permits communication even though there
isn't good enough propagation to pursue reliable SSB operation.
Therefore, the one thing that could keep them active on-the-air --
knowledge of the Morse code, won't be within their capability because
they had no incentive to learn it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Gee Larry, isn't that incentive enough? Or do you need a government
incentive to make something happen?

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
Now that it seems as though code testing will finally be abolished in the
ARS, let's amuse ourselves with a bit of speculation as to what this will
mean in terms of future growth in the numbers of licensed amateur radio
operators in the United States. What do you think will happen? How
much growth do you think will occur, and how fast?

This seems like a reasonable question, so I'll have a go.

I predict that when Element 1 is finally dropped:

- we'll have a surge of new hams for a year of two. This surge will
consist of growth about 3 times that of the past three years. But it
won't last

- once the surge is over, we'll have a growth rate a little greater
than what we have now. Maybe up to twice the current annual growth,
but probably more like 150%.

- there will be a big surge of upgrades, then a return to almost the
same level as before.

See below for actual numbers.

I predict that there will be no significant growth in new licensees.
Now, all we need to do is define the term "significant growth." We currently
have around 600-some kilohams in the US.

Closer to 700,000. Just under 687,000 as of yesterday.

We also have to define "growth" and how it is measured. We're
currently running in excess of 2,000 new licenses a month - offset by
large numbers of expirations. There are also wide swings in the
various numbers because of things like holidays, weather, processing
delays and varying numbers of VE sessions. Just look at the AH0A data
- the numbers wander all around. So it's important to take long-term
averages rather than wild extrapolations of short terms.

I say we define "growth" as increases in the total number of valid US
licenses held by individuals, regardless of license class, as reported
in the thread "ARS License Numbers". And the increases should be
measured in periods of at least a year.

I'd call a five percent growth
factor, or 30,000 newly-licensed radio amateurs, to be significant. Let's
give this a year to happen. I say it won't. How say you?

How about we do our predictions in terms of annual totals:

How many hams a year after Element 1 goes away?
How many hams two years....
How many hams three years...


I say the total number of US hams will grow to 700,000 in about a
year, 710,000 in two years, and then the growth will slow down to at
best 5,000 per year.

Or:

700,000 after 1 year
710,000 after 2 years
715,000 after 3 years
720,000 after 4 years

Etc.

(based on a starting point of about 688,000)

Or to put it another way:

Growth of ~12,000 the first year
Growth of ~10,000 the second year
Growth of ~5,000 the third and following years.

Current growth is about 3,000 per year.


Keep in mind
that at this stage of the discussion, I'm just trying to establish reasonable
parameters -- so let's all weigh in and try to arrive at a consensus as to
what any future growth could be. Then we can commit to our numbers
and see who gets it right -- or at least close.

I hope my predicted numbers are too low.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Dick Carroll writes:

Carl:

If the fact that Dick and I support the concept of retaining code
proficiency
testing in order to be able to possess a unique and highly effective
radio
communications skill is being "stupid," then I must plead guilty. Keep
in
mind that Mr. Gump was a war hero, a successful businessman, and a
keen investor who became a multi-millionaire. I should be so "stupid!"

Not to mention, it is unfortunate that some people choose to
denigrate
those who have a lower IQ. (you mat substitute disgusting for
unfortunate if you like)

Hey, there's no one around any smarter than Carl. If you don't believe it
just ask
him!

Dick:

I have no doubts regarding Carl's intelligence. That doesn't mean that he
is incapable of being wrong about code testing requirements. I have great
respect for Carl and will not say that lunkhead is stupid, because it just
ain't so!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and
drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with
eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham
radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of
the
broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone,
wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by
voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time
or enter into expensive contracts with service providers. Once relieved
of
the requirement to learn that obsolete old Morse code, we will see, as
promised for years, a technical revolution in amateur radio the likes of
which nobody could have imagined in the bad old days of being tested
for competence in "beeping."

I can hardly wait!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, I'm not going to hold my breath for it or place any bets on it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Dwight Stewart

writes:

Instead, both seem to be saying code is no longer a necessary
radio skill since so few radio operators outside ham radio use it today.

That's another argument entirely.

Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is
done
in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes
to
figuring out the requirements for an amateur license.

This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a,
97.1c, and 97.1d).

Opinions vary.

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's
Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment,
and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a
wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig
from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running
on a wheel.


Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage.
Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to
stockpile.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote:

Some, but not all, nocodetest folks have claimed
that the (perceived) lack of growth of the ARS is
one reason to end code testing. (snip)


The "nocodetest folks" didn't end the code testing requirement - the
members of the ITU did and the FCC perhaps will. Again, I haven't seen
growth of Amateur Radio as a significant reason for their decision.


It is a constant theme. The RSGB has repeatedly
cited lack of growth as a major concern of theirs,
and blamed it on the code test.


The RSGB is neither a governing body in the UK or a member of the ITU.
While they offered an opinion, it was only one opinion in many supporting
the end of code testing. That specific opinion would have no weight if CW
was still a significant communications mode outside Amateur Radio (see
below).


Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's
a mystery why what is done in other radio services
should count more than what hams do, when it comes
to figuring out the requirements for an amateur
license.


The Amateur Radio Service was not created in a vacuum. Its stated basis
and purpose extends well outside Amateur Radio. None of those (emergency
service, advancement of the radio arts, advancing skills in skills and
technical phases of art, a reservoir of trained operators, and international
goodwill) are limited to just what happens within the Amateur Radio Service
itself (we seldom provide emergency service for ourselves, for example).

Therefore, what happens outside of Amateur Radio must play a significant
role in what happens within Amateur Radio. CW was justified as a testing
requirement because is was once necessary for a reservoir of trained
operators (for the services we could provide outside Amateur Radio). That is
no longer true, so the test requirement is now being reconsidered.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in part ...

Arnie: Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03
and drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with
eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham radio
who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the
broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone,
wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by voice,
data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time or enter
into expensive contracts with service providers...
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Yep, I'm breathless with anticipation (wink)

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote .

the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.


Carl,

You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be
dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward".

I agree with the first position, but the second position is inflamatory,
divisive, and not supported by a shred of evidence.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim"
wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept?

Dear? I knew it! You ARE in love with her, Larry!

Won't do him any good. Kim's married/taken and quite happy with her
mate, thank you very much.


GRIN. Yep 14 years now. Uh, well, those reasons to begin with, anyway.
The really number one reason is that I'm not that desperate for a man if it
means Larry Roll...


but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because
they
have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have
an
agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome.

Incorrect. They could always accept the evidence presented by an
experienced CW operator.


That's correct. Except that folks such as Dick and Larry have such a war
going on that it's completely gotten passed them that the rest of us can
still think of each other nicely--even though our thoughts about different
things may vary and, yes, even though we may get really fired up on each
other once in a while.


You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY
made. An excellent example, I might add.

Thanks - there are more. Like the student in Grenada during the
invasion/revolution (1983?) whose mike broke.


For real?! What was he saying, do we know?


Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at
things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that.

Just "a bit more"? ;-)


heh heh


When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its
tremendous
cabability, get back to us, won't you?

There are plenty of examples which prove the point of CW/Morse's
usefulness. Whether those examples constiute "proof" of the necessity
of a TEST is a matter of opinion.


Well, I never challenged the point of CW/Morse's usefulness. There's no
doubt about the usefulness of CW. (Larry usually either chooses to ignore,
or misses it when I have good things to say about CW, though). What I'd
never really heard relayed was a real-life story of the claim of CW "getting
through" when nothing else would.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT