Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

It worked just fine for me, Carl -- and I'm a technically-incompetent,
computer-illiterate Pro-Coder! (I guess I'd better throw this in: 8-) )

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

I re-downloaded the file and forwarded it. Anybody else have trouble? Let me
know and I'll email it to you. It did take a bit to get it downloaded.

Maybe that Emmaus BPL test site is the culprit, Carl ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Having given this document due consideration, I can't say that it changes my
mind about anything code testing. I find this one passage particularly
interesting:

"Morse will probably retain most of it's exclusive band segments, at least for
now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in the
future. Several countries no longer have exclusive segments, but depend
instead on voluntary band plans. In fact, our 160-meter band works this way
today, with surprisingly few problems"

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station, and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

Another quote:

"Will we lose something because we will no longer have the knowledge that all
hams can at least understand and send CW, even if very slowly? Maybe, maybe
not. You would be surprised at the number of applicants I see that actually
want to learn CW - they think it will be fun. There's a novel concept -
someone learning a skill because it is fun, not because the government says you
must do it."

If this is so, where is the objection *from those hams who _want to learn CW_*
to being code tested? I've seen the vast majority of new hams who have taken
the time and effort to learn the Morse code approach the code tests with
eager enthusiasm, and a great sense of satisfaction once they succeeded.

Again quoting:

"Obviously, removing the Morse test requirement will make it easier for
thousands of interested persons to join our hobby. There are many, who for
whatever reason have a real, not imagined, problem with learning the code.
Call it stage fright, a psychological block, hearing problems, poor recognition
skills, whatever you want; there are indeed those who literally cannot master
the code, no matter how hard they try. Lazy, you say? Anyone can make it to
5 WPM, you say? They just don't try, you say? Apparently you have not
participated at hundreds of exam sessions. I have. I have seen grown men and
women with tears in their eyes, frustrated, angry, sometimes back next time,
sometimes giving up on ham radio altogether. Where's the gain in having
someone give up?"

I have some personal experience here. I've had all the above mentioned
"problems"
with learning the code, and have made all the same excuses. However, I now
know
what my problem was -- I didn't *want* to be a radio amateur bad enough to
overcome these so-called problems. It was only after I took a much different
personal approach, involving a more mature attitude toward the requirement and
making the personal determination that there must be some good reason for it,
that I was able to finally succeed. In so doing, I had a much larger world of
amateur radio opened for me. Moreover, having succeeded in learning the code, I
subsequently found myself using it -- a lot -- and enjoying it immensely even
though I never thought I could.

Again quoting:

" Are you proud that you "made it"? Can you not find something that another
person can do that you would find extremely difficult if not impossible?
Could you win the Tour de France bicycle race - even if you trained every day
for the rest of your life? Could you invent the Laser? Could you paint the
Mona Lisa? Not that painting a work of art or riding a bicycle has all that
much to do with radio, it's just to point out that while you may have been able
to master the code with some degree of success, that doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has the same ability as you. I would argue that the ability to
master the code has no apparent connection with how "good" a ham a person is.
What we want, I think you will agree, is someone who will respect our
traditions, follow the rules, bring enthusiasm and vigor to the hobby, and make
a positive contribution.

So, who's to say that mastering Morse code skills makes a better ham? I would
not be so arrogant as to think such a thing. Every time I get to feeling
superior, I look around, and guess what? - - - I can find someone who is
better at something, anything, than me. I can also name several individuals
that I think are in one way or another "better hams" than I, better operators,
better engineers, better at some aspect of our hobby than me. Might that be
true with you too?"

I can honestly say that overcoming my objections to learning the code did, in
fact, make me a better ham, for the simple reason that it made that mode
available to me *as* a ham. Were it not for the requirement to take the code
tests, I would never have gained that capability, and it is my belief that new
radio amateurs in a "no code test" licensing environment will simply bypass
this mode entirely. I'm not saying that some tiny minority of them won't try
it and even gain useful proficiency at it on their own initiative or with the
encouragement of dedicated Elmers, but I don't think it very likely that it
will happen in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as it had under the
previous set of licensing standards. I fear that there will, in fact, be a
progressive loss of the total numbers of hams who know and use the Morse/CW
mode, eventually zeroing out. This is too great a loss to our service, for I
believe that the many well-known benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode
will be just as relevant to amateur radio in the 21st Century as it was in the
twentieth.

Final quote:

"CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on. We
no longer require applicants to draw schematic diagrams, demonstrate how to
neutralize a triode vacuum tube amplifier, lots of other things. Lets be
gentlemen and give CW a decent, respectful, wave. Remembering our old friend,
but looking forward, not backward. Morse code will live forever. As long as
someone cares about the history and mystery of early radio, and lots of hams
do, CW will be around. Like anything else, when a person finds he or she has
a need to use Morse code, they will learn it. Want to work DX, or QRP, or weak
signal VHF, or Moon-bounce? Better learn the code, or you won't have a very
satisfying experience."

Wiley has stated that it is incumbent on those of us who know and use the
Morse/CW mode to encourage newcomers to learn it and love it as much as we do.
Therefore, as a licensing requirement, it only deserves a "respectful wave" in
the future. Well, unfortunately, in this age of advanced technology where our
own equipment is no longer within the technical capabilities of average radio
amateurs to build and/or service, we can pretty much say the same about all the
technical written examination requirements as well. He goes on for pages about
his new entry-level license class, which, IMHO, is unnecessary. The present
Technician syllabus is proven to be achievable by people from all walks of
life. If there are any serious RF or electrical safety issues to be addressed,
I would submit that perhaps we need to add some emphasis there, rather than
further reducing licensing standards simply for the nebulous purpose of
allowing more and younger hams to "get their feet wet"
as it were.

I think the primary challenge ham radio faces, now and in the future, is it's
relative lack of publicity. It is safe to say that the majority of people
these these days simply cannot relate to amateur radio, mainly because very few
of us simply don't relate to the concept of "radio" in the first place. We
turn things on and they work. Our electronic devices, RF-based or not, are
totally taken for granted. I believe that what we need to do to incite
interest and curiosity in radio communication is to keep doing things "the old
way" as far as learning and licensing are concerned, but to bolster that with
some good public information about Amateur Radio as a concept in it's most
basic terms. This is usually done in terms of it's public service potential,
and that's fine and dandy, but we also need to emphasize the elements of
learning, exploration, and just plain fun. Fortunately, young people are still
quite receptive to such things, and, ironically, usually embrace the challenge
of learning the Morse code much more willingly than those of us who simply want
to flex our consumer muscles and make our voices heard in far-away places after
throwing a pile of money at the necessary technology. However, this will only
doom us to creating an ARS filled with more and more of the kinds of jaded,
technically uninvolved "hams" that could become problems on-the-air. If the
equipment manufacturers were producing very low cost (I mean a couple of
hundred bucks, maximum) low-power basic transceivers, preferably in kit form,
which would be challenging enough to put together but still virtualy guaranteed
to work well, they'd sell like hotcakes to exactly the audience we wish to
address -- young people. In addition, putting them on the air, on the HF bands
and primarily in the CW and data modes, would create a demand for things like
fewer antenna restrictions in housing developments and, ultimately, more
capable (and expensive) equipment for when skills and technical knowledge
advanced to that stage. However, we won't get there if everyone keeps saying
"Ham Radio -- what's THAT???"

I am convinced that ensuring the future of the ARS has nothing to do with
licensing standards, including code testing. It has everything to do with our
public image -- or almost total lack thereof. The NCVEC petition doesn't
address this issue at all. Like everything involving Fred Maia, W5YI, it's all
about the code and getting rid of code testing. I don't think he will find his
answers to the nature of Amateur Radio in the 21st Century by looking there.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users
of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a
need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a
need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

It was WWII, or, more accurately, pre-WWII but post WWI. Hitler used
the term "lebensraum" as his justification for the conquest of Russia in
his book, Mein Kampf. He lusted after Russia's vast expanses of land
area in order to provide "lebensraum," or "living room" (space) for what
he thought should be the rightful expansion of the German nation. His
pursuit of "lebensraum" was one of his more severe acts of hubris during
WWII, which ultimately resulted in his defeat by wasting his military
resources on the second (Russian) front. Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

Had he been willing to settle
for the conquest and control of the whole of Western and Central Europe,
he may have had the forces in place to resist the Allied invasion, and
thus given Germany the time to develop it's own atomic weapons. This,
of course, would have quite a dilemma for the Allies, since Hitler,
madman he was, would have then most likely employed his nuclear
arsenal -- most likely on Russia, England, and possibly the U.S. We,
of course, would have had to nuke him first to prevent that from
happening. Therefore, in a way, Hitler did the rest of the world a favor
in his futile attempt to conquer Russia conventionally. A military
genius he was not. If the Austrian Corporal had been a real General
instead, a lot of us may not be here today.

Nice theory but some would dispute it thusly:

The big mistake was not the invasion of the Soviet Union, but rather the twin
classic blunders of dividing one's forces and not being logistically prepared.
Had the invaders gone straight for their enemy's capital (Moscow), and been
properly prepared for the winter, the result might well have been very
different.

The German atomic program would not have come up with a workable atomic weapon
for many years (but the Allies did not know that). Look at what it took for the
Manhattan project to make three weapons!. And Germany did not have a delivery
system.

Germany also messed up bigtime by not giving U-boat production and development
top priority and support. Large amounts of their limited naval resources were
wasted on superbattleships like Bismarck and Tirpitz - had they built improved
U-boats with those resources, again the result might well have been very
different.

Then there's the Enigma story...

A good thing they weren't smarter.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users
of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)


"easiest mode to implement" is not quite the same as "easiest, simplest
mode, with the easiest to build equipment"

Here's the difference:

"easiest mode to implement" means open the box, plug in the radio, connect
antenna, and push the mike button.

"easiest, simplest mode, with the easiest equipment to build" means simpler
circuitry requirements, only an on/off "switch" to key the circuitry rather
than the more complex microphone unit, and so on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE