|
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. So you're clearly hearing just what you want to hear.If you'd tunein the low end of the 40 meter band some night you'd hear the real evidence. I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"??? I don't ... They make it clear they're not "hot to get on HF" either. If they were they'd be doing juste as Bert, Dee and Mike have done, and work toward meeting the requirements instead of ranting and bitching about a mundane *verey* minimal Morse code test. thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. At $34 per year there'll never be any large percentage of the minimally interested joining the ARRL, whatever the code test is or isn't. ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Very little if any of which is of any interestinterest to the HT jocks. However, selling those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by current policy to keep them off of HF None of which is in the least applicible to those who have no interest in joining in the first place. ] .... it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup poll to figure that one out ... It just takes a huge leap to a conclusion. |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? do you REALLY think they are "hot to learn Morse"??? Some of them are. Others aren't. I don't ... With all due respect, Carl, I don't see you as a good spokesperson for the CW/Morse mode.... thus, I believe that the ARRL stands to pick up more members than they stand to lose if they take a position that it's time for Morse testing to go. It remains to be seen. Those for who the Morse test is too much trouble may not be bothered to join the ARRL either. ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. However, selling those benefits is difficult when the prospective buyer is someone who knows his/her membership dues are going to an organization that's dedicated by current policy to keep them off of HF ... That's simply not true. Everyone has the same opportunity to pass the required tests - code and written - and get whatever license they desire. There is no policy to keep anyone off HF. There is also the option of becoming a member, electing new directors, and changing the policy. it doesn't take Einstein or a Gallup poll to figure that one out ... How about the ARRL/READEX poll, and what it told us about hams under 24? 85% of them were procodetest. Do you think that number has radically changed since then? The nocodetest position may carry the day when all is said and done. And then we may well find that the whole issue was a red herring. Consider this, Carl: Once the license is in hand, getting on HF can be quite daunting for the newcomer, compared to VHF/UHF. All a newbie needs on VHF/UHF is an HT, if they are close to repeaters. For a few dollars more, they can have a nice base/mobile duobander with antennas that mount on TV hardware, and/or in the car with a few wires and a magmount. HF requires much more hardware, big antennas, and a whole pile of other stuff. There are 9 bands and a bunch of modes. Propagation varies all over the place, and mobile is a different game altogether. More time, more space and more money. If you have CC&Rs, things get even tougher. You have a new house with plenty of space and more resources than perhaps 99% of the rest of us, Carl. What sort of HF station do you have? Yes, I know you're busy - we're ALL busy, though. Surf on over to http://www.dell.com and check out what sort of computer setup $500 to $1000 will buy. That's the competition. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of then see of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham radio beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies". Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now. Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you elude to have yet to be proven. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: To this young (...and then no-code Technician class.) newbie, the ARRL actually appeared very dedicated to helping me get ON HF. Yes, IF you were willing to meet their criteria by jumping through the Morse code hoop ... Carl - wk3c Speak for yourself, Carl. I certainly did NOT have to jump through any hoops. I set a goal, researched the requirements, and then set about meeting said requirements. I also make sure that in all the letters and e-mails I send to the league, FCC, political reps, etc. I inform them that the current Morse code test was no barrier for this newbie and did NOT "force" me to jump through any hoops. So please don't allow any individual or group promoting the "barrier/hoop" line of Bravo Sierra to include me in their demographic. I suspect there are more NTs (As opposed to OTs or OFs) like me who dislike being associated with underachievement. I hope they too will take the time to make their views on the matter heard. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS# 9384 Bert: Well said, OM! Unfortunately, it was wasted on Carl. Carl is one of those murderously resentful NCTA's who would much rather waste all his time whining about being tested for a useful communications skill than doing what it takes to learn it. He is truly to be pitied, for he has wasted many years that could have been spent happily pursuing the hobby of ham radio. The true irony is that in spite of his professional-grade technical knowledge, he will never be as good a radio amateur as you are! 73 de Larry, K3LT FISTS #2008, CC #0703 |
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL |
"charlesb" wrote in message gy.com... I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Charles Brabham, N5PVL Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was about 8-10 years ago. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side .... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? The ONLY thing that counts is the answer to the question: What is the rational for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the requirement from the treaty? The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to keep any testing of morse. who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Just where has that been shown and by whom? The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. Others have already suggested a need for a different set of licenses and privileges. Jim, you and I have long agreed that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a particular license class. ......... ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to do with license class and privileges being revisted. |
Mike Coslo wrote:
charlesb wrote: I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over the Code / No Code issue. Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby. Sorry Charles, but that is pretty much the purpose of this newsgroup. This group is not representative of hams in general, it is a pit for those of us with the inclination towards argument to play in. That beats having us out with the general population, no? - Mike KB3EIA - Ten years ago, I'd have agreed that nothing on Usenet should have been confused with "The General Population". Since about 1995 though, I'm not sure but what Usenet isn't just exactly The General Population. Or perhaps just close enough for Government Work. There are certainly *millions* of people who have read a few articles in the rec.radio.amateur.* groups in the last 2 or 3 years. And *millions* of people (including most hams that looked) quickly went on to something not so clearly devoid of intelligent life. They took with them a very poor image of Amateur Radio. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
"WA3IYC" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I agree that the ARRL is "between a rock and a hard place" with respect to the split in their existing membership. Very much so, I'd agree. However, outside of their membership (in the 75% of US hams who are NOT members of the ARRL), I believe that the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side ... What makes you think this? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I agree with you about the polls being self directing. Therefore are you operating on gut feeling, what your friends tell you, or what? I'm going on what I hear from members, from clubs, from e-mails I get from folks, etc. With all due respect, Carl, I don't think that "self selected sample" is representative of the entire amateur radio community. And I don't think you are a totally objective observer...;-) I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those nocode techs Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest hams were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he does not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said the same thing. Don't they count? The ONLY thing that counts Hold on a sec, Bill. We've been told that: - we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS - (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code - The future is newcomers and young hams - The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new hams but written tests aren't and the big one: "the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side" Now, do these things matter or not? is the answer to the question: What is the rational for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the requirement from the treaty? I think you meant "rationale" And here it is: 1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur radio. 2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill test. 3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned. 4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS. Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does the 20 pages of the NCI petition. The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to keep any testing of morse. Sure. And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of "expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED! This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more homogenized. This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of any illegal's hands. "Expert agency", they're called, right? who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse requirement ... Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra! The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs will gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for them to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another written exam.....;-) You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that they are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to be necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station. Just where has that been shown and by whom? It's self evident. Common sense. FCC considers a Tech to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below 30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact, Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of four bands. Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51 MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB, AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW and SSB below 30 MHz? What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so essential that it MUST be tested? Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz but not 3.520 MHz? The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that. See above about convincing FCC. Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above 30 MHz but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF? You are now arguing privileges, not code testing. I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement opens up the same can of worms on the writtens. Others have already suggested a need for a different set of licenses and privileges. Yup - and a lot of those changes are not for the better. But how can they be defended against? Jim, you and I have long agreed that privileges in many cases don't map well against the testing for a particular license class. Sure. And I see that situation getting worse, not better. ........ ARRL membership provides a lot of benefits through QST, the website, and all of the good things they DO do for amateur radio. Sure - but a lot of hams, of all license classes, don't see those things. Or they aren't interested. I know at least one ham here who gave up on HF because she doesn't like the noise and distortion of HF. And, comparing even the best HF SSB to typical VHF/UHF FM, I can understand her point of view. Some are still mad about incentive licensing, of all things. One of the real problems with the Tech license being defacto the entry-level is that, for the most part, beginners nowadays are VHF/UHF centered, with their main focus on voice operation and manufactured equipment. Those things are not bad of themselves. They do, however, tend to distract new hams from nonvoice modes, building their own equipment, and national interests vs. local ones. IOW, they are more likely to join a local radio club than the distant ARRL. Again, that has nothing to do with code testing and everything to do with license class and privileges being revisted. It has to do with the patchwork changes made to the license structure. Our basic system dates from 1951. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com