"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.

"Bill Sohl" wrote:
"charlesb" wrote in message
igy.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

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

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

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