On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 20:47:40 -0400, "Bill Sohl"
wrote:


Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.

Many of whom will, ironically enough, be codeless hams running PSK31
or one of the other "sound card" modes.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

And it seems to me that non-CW hams would be far superior to CW-hams, with
things such as phone nets, QSOs, etc. Oh wait, I think you already said
that. . . But, you know what? It doesn't even feel good feeling superior.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

You make the presumption that we don't ever use phone, conduct QSO's, or
belong to nets. Of course we do -- and many of us are just as good at those
aspects of Ham radio as well.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Gee, now where did I leave my microphone?"

In article , Dick Carroll writes:

Th[e] hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world
by
hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd Davies,
well I
doubt that statement even needs finishing.

Dick:

In any case, it will be quite interesting to watch the developments of the
next few years in the life of the ARS. All of the technical advancement
that was promised throughout the code testing debate will either suddenly
come into being, or will be notable by it's absence. There may, indeed,
be a handful of new hams with professional technical qualifications who
would finally obtain a license -- but what of all the others who simply have
the desire to matriculate from the 11-meter band and be legally able to
use higher power and spin a VFO knob? Are their contributions going
to save our spectrum from re-allocation to commercial interests? Will
they expand emergency communications capability to an extent which
will cause federal, state, and local bureaucracies to eliminate any and
all regulatory restrictions on the operation of an amateur radio station?
Or will they just cause a lot of QRM for a while, become discouraged,
and revert to inactivity? Oh well, as that ancient Chinese curse goes,
"May you live in interesting times." Those times are just about to begin.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the
world by
hams who have taken a code test.

Er, Dick ... you over-inflated, Morse-prowess-based ego REALLY shows
in the above comment.

First, I don't believe that "Tha hobby is in sad shape ..."

Second, if it *were* it would be largely because of the narrow-minded,
backward, egotistical sort of thinking that you express above.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

So, what do you think will be holding up the ARS in the future?

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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?

Brian:

No, I sincerely do not believe that this is "incentive enough." It certainly
didn't cut any ice with me, during the period of my life from age 14 to
age 28 when I longed to be a licensed radio amateur, but couldn't be
bothered to learn the Morse code. The thing that made me start beeping
was the "incentive" to get on the air at all -- in any mode, and then start
yakking into a microphone as soon as I was able. The irony is, I soon
discovered that CW was fun and a challenge, and sitting and waiting my
turn to yak was a waste of valuable time.

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that it was the code testing requirement
that caused hams to learn the code -- not any innate love or appreciation
for the mode.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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

Jim:

Your predictions seem to be right in line with my own expectations.
However, as you say, there are a lot of variables that cannot be
accounted for with any predictable certainty. I agree that there will
be a great deal of upgrading activity, particularly in the first three
years. I wonder how the FCC will deal with all the upgrades, since
their overall goal seems to be to reduce the administrative burden
imposed by the ARS?

73 de Larry, K3LT

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" writes:
"Dick Carroll" wrote:
Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world by
hams who have taken a code test.

Er, Dick ... you over-inflated, Morse-prowess-based ego REALLY shows
in the above comment.

First, I don't believe that "Tha hobby is in sad shape ..."

Second, if it *were* it would be largely because of the narrow-minded,
backward, egotistical sort of thinking that you express above.

Carl - wk3c

Carl:

So, what do you think will be holding up the ARS in the future?

Hams who have not taken a code test.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

It's like saying that French is a "better" language than English, or
that football is a "better" sport than baseball. Many English speakers
and baseball fans are going to see such things as put-downs. Even if
you don't mean them to be.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."

and

"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."

and

"can be done, with proper modulation and coding"

"How ridiculous!!!!!!!"

All in reference to some other hams' choice of Morse for EME work. On
frequencies for which there hasn't been a Morse test for over a dozen
years.

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.

only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

What you may have seen me write is something like is "Sometimes Morse
will get through when nothing else available will" or "Sometimes Morse
will get through when analog voice modes won't" and other true
statements.

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.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

See above ...

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding
with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ...

Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual
station, and actual QSOs?

No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But
the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not
factual.

Yet you ridicule those who do it other ways. You say it can be done
"better", but you haven't done it, which doesn't do much for your
credibility among other hams, nor convince them of the rightness of
your methods.

The way to make your point is NOT to put down the "traditionalists",
but to lead the way by actually doing what you say is possible.
Imagine two stations with 100 watts output and single Yagis
conducting reliable EME. Imagine EME WAS between such stations.
Imagine articles in QST, QEX and other ham publications describing how
it's done and what great fun it is.

It's the difference between a positive attitude and a negative one.

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

As far as "what you've done", it's important to realize that most
people aren't going to want to spend their time and money doing
something the way you suggest
when you haven't done it yourself, *and* you call the way they do it
"ridiculous!!!!!".

Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If
you can do "better", go ahead.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

If you can do "better", go ahead. Define how your way is "better",
then go do it. Otherwise it sounds like "don't do what I do, do what I
say"...

That's how things change in amateur radio - somebody actually goes out
and does
it, and shows the way.

Build and publicize a system that will let hams work EME inexpensively
with
small antennas, low power and easily-duplicated equipment/software.
Pretty soon
those unnamed "traditionalists" will be completely outnumbered.

Do it, write it up and submit it to QST, QEX, CQ, Worldradio,
etc. They will love it. Look at the amount of ink PSK-31 has gotten.

But somebody (G3PLX) had to actually make it work, first. Did he go
around saying Morse and Baudot and ASCII RTTY were "ridiculous"? I
don't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test,
Carl?
;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ... with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)

and

"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."

I maintain that the statement is true. Note I said "so many hams" ... not
ALL hams.

only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly
in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are
the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV
2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real
ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)

Carl - wk3c