"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
Dick Carroll; wrote:
. You know as well as anyone, better than most, that almost the
only
"enforcement" we've had on the ARS for many years
prior to Riley's appointment WAS the code test.

Now, a 'difficult' (for that type of individual) test which
discourages,
yea, FILTERS him from active, open participation is a poor
excuse for monitor vans and well trained and equipped crews.
But it's what we had.

Now we have Riley and a 5wpm code test. Soon only Riley. When
he goes, I
for one believe the ARS will follow his exit, not far behind. By
that time
there
will be far more than adequate evidence that the ARS is no
longer a viable
self- policing entity, staffed with conscientious people willing
and able to
conduct themselves in a manner commensurate with the priveleges
granted,
most of which will shortly be summarily withdrawn.

Dick,

EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there
have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom
and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ...

There have also been predictions and promises of a "brave new world"
that the new changes would bring. Which also did not come to pass.

Witness:

conversion from spark to CW;
conversion from AM to SSB;
introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer
thingies";

None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change. Hams adopted
them voluntarily. For example, spark wasn't outlawed for hams until
1927, even though it was essentially abandoned by hams by 1923 or 24.

AM is still popular on HF - in fact, more popular than 20-30 years
ago. What caused hams to abandon AM in large numbers was the simple
fact that an SSB transceiver was less expensive than an AM
receiver-transmitter combo of equal effective power. That transition
also drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams.

Packet is still mostly the 1200 baud of the '80s. The biggest new
modes of the past decade or so are PSK-31 and APRS. Good stuff!

the introduction of the no-code Tech license;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

restructuring 3 years ago;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

and many others I'm sure I've omitted.

Here are some, just for discussion:

- the 1929 rules changes that drastically cut the spectrum available
to hams and greatly increased the signal quality requirements.

- the 1951 introduction of the Novice, Tech and Extra licenses

- the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968-69 that drastically
increased the requirements for a full privileges license. And ushered
in a period of growth and innovation....

The point is, the world (and ham radio) is NOT going to end ... despite
your rants that it is.

That depends on what is meant by "ending".

Actually, on the contrary, if these changes hadn't happened and we were
still stuck in the spark era (i.e., if cranky olde fartz like you had
stopped
the progress of ham radio over the years), we WOULD be in danger.

Apples and oranges. Rules changes are not the same thing as choices
made by hams. And the AM-SSB wars did not help amateur radio.

If you want to see what presents the biggest danger to the future of
ham radio LOOK IN THE MIRROR ... the enemy you fear is yourself,
with your backward thinking, unwillingness to accept progress, and lack
of tolerance for newcomers (unless, of course, they've suffered through
the same fraternity hazing rituals that you had to endure, lo those many
years ago and think in exactly the backward, narrowminded ways that
you do).

When you're done looking in the mirror, you can look a your cronies,
Larry, Dave Heil, and the whole list of like-thinkers... they are also
part of the enemy you fear ... for they think and act essentially the
same way as you do.

THERE is where the REAL danger to the future of ham radio lies ...
in people who are so married to/stuck in its past that they despise
any thought of change, progress, and the newcomers that it will
bring (unless the newcomers are acceptable "clones" cast in your
own image).

Well, there you have it.

However, those newcomers are the future of ham radio ... for us older
guys will surely die, and if there aren't younger folks to replace us ham
radio will die with us.

I am younger than you, Carl. In fact I'm younger than many who post
here. Yet I'm more of an oldtimer, too.

There are newcomers of all ages today. I have already seen many hams
come and go, either as SKs or dropouts. There are many who are hams
only in that they are still in the FCC database. A good number of them
are much newer than me.

It's up to us to WELCOME and ENCOURAGE
them ... their ways will not be the ways of the past ... things change and
nobody can freeze time.

Yet at the same time it is folly to equate "change" with "progress".
Not all of the changes in the ARS have been for the best.

I can remember a time when you simply could not find anything of
offensive content on the ham bands - they were G rated, regardless of
mode. This wasn't just because of the mores of the times or
enforcement by FCC - it was "the way hams did things" - a tradition of
high standards - passed on from oldtimers to newcomers.

I can also remember a time when most hams were unafraid to build,
repair, modify or simply fool with their equipment. Today it is the
homebrewer who is unusual.

The most important values of the ARS do not need to change. Things
like adherence to the regulations and standards, courtesy on the air
and off, technical know-how, operating skill, welcome and help for the
newcomer, respect for the oldtimer, making a place and a space for all
who follow the rules.....these things must be preserved, or ham radio
is dead.

But insulting, berating, demeaning them, and trying
to keep them out is not the way ..

If they see hams insulting, berating and demeaning each other, what
are they to think?

Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in
the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change
in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU.

Am I "the enemy"?

(Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay
stuck in the first part ...)

Words for all of us to live by....

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the
no-code tech license, the ham population would be something
like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ...


Prove it. There is nothing demonstrating that this had any significant
effect on the growth of the number of hams. You are stating an opinion.
Nothing more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 7 Aug 2003 15:33:36 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

- the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968-69 that drastically
increased the requirements for a full privileges license. And ushered
in a period of growth and innovation....

Actually, ham growth took a distinct drop virtually from the moment
'incentive licensing' (a.k.a. 'punishment licensing') was proposed in
the early '60s. Seems a number of OTs (and NTs, probably) didn't like
the idea that they were going to have privileges (including some of
the most choice frequency segments) taken away from them and they'd
have to pass a test (or two or three) to get them back. This
coincided with a number of well-known manufacturers finding that it
was no longer financially profitable to stay in the ham market. If
there appears to be increased growth after 'incentive licensing',
it'll likely just be that ham growth returned to its normal levels
after recovering from the blow to morale inflicted by the
implementation of incentive licensing.

It appears the ARRL and the FCC learned from this - I don't think
there's been any proposals from either since then that envision taking
away privileges from any particular class of license.

Ben

In article , Ben Coleman
writes:

On 7 Aug 2003 15:33:36 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

- the "incentive licensing" changes of 1968-69 that drastically
increased the requirements for a full privileges license. And ushered
in a period of growth and innovation....

Actually, ham growth took a distinct drop virtually from the moment
'incentive licensing' (a.k.a. 'punishment licensing') was proposed in
the early '60s.

See my other post about the dates and details. There were lots of other factors
to the drop in growth.

Seems a number of OTs (and NTs, probably) didn't like
the idea that they were going to have privileges (including some of
the most choice frequency segments) taken away from them and they'd
have to pass a test (or two or three) to get them back.

True - but there was also widespread support for incentive licensing among
hams. Opinion ran almost exactly 50-50.

This
coincided with a number of well-known manufacturers finding that it
was no longer financially profitable to stay in the ham market.

Who?

The 1960-68 period was marked by the introduction of many new SSB transceivers
and matched-pair receiver-transmitters, often at prices lower than comparable
AM equipment Besides the high priced Drake and Collins gear, there were
offerings from WRL/Galaxy (DB-84, Galaxy 3, 5, and others), National (NCX-3,
National 200, NCX-5, NCX-1000), Swan (monobanders, tribander, 350, 500)
Hallicrafters (SR-150, SR-160, SR-400, SR-2000, HT-46/SX-146), and SBE.
Heathkit had the SB series and the monobanders.

There was no shortage of good equipment.

If
there appears to be increased growth after 'incentive licensing',
it'll likely just be that ham growth returned to its normal levels
after recovering from the blow to morale inflicted by the
implementation of incentive licensing.

Perhaps. The '70s were a period of growth despite lots of hurdles.

It appears the ARRL and the FCC learned from this - I don't think
there's been any proposals from either since then that envision taking
away privileges from any particular class of license.

ARRL learned, FCC didn't. In 1975, FCC proposed a complex 7 class "two ladder"
system that would have reduced the privilegs of many hams. ARRL and others
fought it successfully.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay
stuck in the first part ...)

Words for all of us to live by....

"The Picture of Dorian Grey" is more appropriate.

LHA










Now get a cask of Amontilado while we all brick you up...

Alun Palmer wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Not atall. Since about 1995 there has been a paradigm shift caused by this
medium we're using right now (the Internet). If code testing had been
abolished significantly before that it would have boosted our numbers far
more than it ever can now. All I'm really saying is that that opportunity
is lost.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "paradigm
shift", especially if he proceeds to jump to a false conclusion or to
several of them.

Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious
few prospective hams who want to use it.

How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field
Days, the CW ops generated the most interest.

As a sideshow it generates interest. Think of it as being like a
demonstration of some obscure craft in a living museum. Sure, people find
it interesting watching a blacksmith shoe a horse (and that's not a dead
art either), but it doesn't mean they are going to learn to do it.

But you haven't addressed the question posed: How do you know what
prospective hams want to do?

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Now that Carl can share Dave's band space...

Carl may share some space with me.

Carl can share any space with you that he wishes. That is what the
FCC mean's by issuing him an Extra license. Get used to it. Naw,
nevermind.

Carl may share some space.

May share all space.

He may and he may not.

Take it up with his hairdresser. The FCC says he may share all space,
and thats good enough for me.

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same
space.

Which is it?

May or May Not?

That's correct.

Dave K8MN

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

Prove it.

Show proof that 200,000 people would not have gotten US amateur radio
licenses between February 14, 1991 and April 15, 2000 if the Technician
class license had never lost its code test.

I don't think you have any proof. Or even any evidence. Just bluster.

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Alun Palmer wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Not atall. Since about 1995 there has been a paradigm shift caused by this
medium we're using right now (the Internet). If code testing had been
abolished significantly before that it would have boosted our numbers far
more than it ever can now. All I'm really saying is that that opportunity
is lost.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses the term "paradigm
shift", especially if he proceeds to jump to a false conclusion or to
several of them.

No problem. We all find your attempts at judge, jury, and
executioner to be ineffectual, puerile, and rather stupid.

Who's "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

"False conclusion?"

Yes, false conclusion.

Hardly.

You've been wrong before. It shouldn't come as a surprise this time.

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

I referred to the statement concluding that the internet is the reason
we don't have more hams. Ham radio is not about web pages, e-mail and
usenet.


Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious
few prospective hams who want to use it.

How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field
Days, the CW ops generated the most interest.

As a sideshow it generates interest. Think of it as being like a
demonstration of some obscure craft in a living museum. Sure, people find
it interesting watching a blacksmith shoe a horse (and that's not a dead
art either), but it doesn't mean they are going to learn to do it.

But you haven't addressed the question posed: How do you know what
prospective hams want to do?

Oh, my, now the judge, jury, and executioner pretends to have
prescience!

See? Now YOU'VE jumped to a false conclusion. I didn't pretend
prescience; I asked a question.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...all you can do is put down others who raise questions
that might threaten your "superior" status in amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk indeed, Foghorn. You have it backwards. Someone made a
statement, I asked the question. Why are you concerned with my status
in amateur radio? You aren't involved.

Try READING what Alun said. He raises a valid point.

Try reading what I said. Alun raised a point. It isn't necessarily
valid. I asked a question. You're all fogged up.

You are still REFUSING to accept anything contrary to your precious
viewpoints.

That won't make them go away.

Granted, my precious viewpoints are not going away. Let me ask you, are
you now accepting anything contrary to YOUR precious viewpoints?

It just arouses enmity among all those who refuse to worship your
radiogod status.

What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio. Have you
made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio
god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up
your mind yet?

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

Prove it.

Show proof that 200,000 people would not have gotten US amateur radio
licenses between February 14, 1991 and April 15, 2000 if the Technician
class license had never lost its code test.

I don't think you have any proof. Or even any evidence. Just bluster.

Jimmie, that was an OLD argument in here and you LOST it.

Getting all puffed up and antagonistic won't prove any case for
you on the morse code test. It won't prove any case for your
false interpretation of statistics that was on the AH0A website.

You would not accept statistics of a noted PCTA taken from the
FCC public database then and you refuse to accept it now. There's
no point in rehashing an old argument where you LOST.

You won't make any valid "points" in here by repeating "you're
mistaken" and continual refusal to accept FCC database
information.

LHA