Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby. Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters. Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested. To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been". To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech, even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

73, Leo

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:03:48 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote

Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

OK, if we can "make believe" that FCC would find it in their heart to set
aside all the valuable spectrum we occupy today "from scratch", then here is
my suggestion for the "New Amateur Radio Rules":

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this. (See 97.3)

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC

In article , Leo
writes:

Hans,

I believe that you have missed my point a little bit (!) - it wasn't
to start up a redefinition of the entire hobby all over again, but to
stimulate an introspective look at the validity of the various
arguements ongoing in this group (code / no code, more testing / less
testing, etc.) based on the world as it stands in 2003. Things that
made perfect sense in 1919, or 1941, or 1963 may well be seriously
outdated today, based on the current state of our hobby.

Sounds reasonable, Leo. Different from the "created today" idea but worth a
look.

Devil's Advocate mode = ON

Example - In
1930, hams had to build just about all of their own equipment, so
testing them on their ability to hand-draw and analyse radio
schematics made good sense. Otherwise, the bands would be full of
splatter and heterodynes from poorly-crafted transmitters.

That's one way to look at it. OTOH, in 1930 there *were* problems with
transmitters splattering, chirping, clicking and buzzing all over the bands,
and getting outside the band as well. So it could be argued that the tests were
there to try to cure a problem as well.

Now, where
just about everyone is using commercially built transmitting
equipment, that level of detail is no longer of critical importance,
and is no longer tested.

Drawing schematics as part of the test (in the USA) was removed at least 40
years ago, when FCC went to 100% multiple choice. (1960 or 1961, for amateur
tests up to at least General, which had all privileges at the time.)

To propose that today would be quite
difficult to justify - most folks never even take the cover off their
radios anymore, let alone design one from scratch.....

But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur
radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a
transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval
or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces.

My point is, if we argue from preference or personal bias, we tend to
hold on to things because they are familiar, or comfortable, or just
"the way it's always been".

At the same time, it's important to note that things which survive the test of
time often do so for very good reasons.

To review using an analytical mindset
might just bring out the true value of some aspects of the hobby -
sure, there are traditions that should be kept (everyone on SSB uses
Q-signals in comon speech,

I don't! ;-)

even though they were only designed for
brevity when using Morse code) - it is a quaint link to the past.

Others, like mandatory CW testing, should be able to stand on their
own merit based on solid reasoning - after all, we are forcing people
to learn it to get in to the hobby (me included - the current price of
admission to HF...) - so there should be a good technical or
procedural reason to do so. This ain't the Masons....:0)

Sure - but what constitutes solid reasoning varies from person to person. I
think that the simple fact that hundreds of thousands of hams all over the
world use Morse on the HF ham bands is a solid reason to require at least a
test for skill in the mode at a very basic level - say, 5 wpm. Others disagree.


Your rule set is actually a good one - simple, and to the point. If
only people could work within straightforward frameworks like this -
the regulators would be out of business.....

Agreed! But experience has shown otherwise.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to
fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with
experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This
mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and
bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today.


Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save
face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the
various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and
Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the
amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it
took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption
of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if
they intended to keep it shut down.


The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!
It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!


Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.

I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.

OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.

Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?


Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.

Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we
decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have
over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well,
what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly.
But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has
always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game
plan.

Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to
fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with
experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This
mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and
bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today.

Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save
face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the
various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and
Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the
amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it
took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption
of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if
they intended to keep it shut down.

Exactly, Dee. And it didn't stop there - amateurs had to fight for recognition
internationally as well, all through the 1920s. Amateur radio was only
recognized as a separate radio service by international regulations in 1927.

The whole concept of "radio for its own sake" evolved over time, and as K0HB so
rightly says, is still evolving. What it evolves into is mostly in the hands of
those who choose to become radio amateurs.

Note that the regulations did not contain any sort of "Basis and Purpose"
statements until 1951, when FCC insisted on writing such into the regs for each
service.

The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!

I am convinced that all the regulators really care about wrt amateur radio is:

- Noninterference with other services
- Orderly on-air behavior by amateurs
- Reasonable level of use of allocated spectrum

Everything else is pretty much up to us.

It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!

Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.

Exactly. And it's not just amateur radio that is threatened by BPL.

I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

But CW *doesn't* have any *exclusive* band assignments on HF/MF! Not one Hz!

There are lots of reasons to keep CW/Morse testing - and lots of reasons to let
it go. All reasons basically come down to someone's opinion, one way or the
other.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.

Maybe.

OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

Sure!

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.

Excellent example. Offices today use more paper, not less!

Note that most of the concepts of the computerized office (mouse, graphical
user interface, computer at every desk, networking) came from Xerox's Palo Alto
Research Center (PARC) in the very early 1970s. The folks at Xerox thought
their core business of copiers would wither away as computers took over.....

Often when something is done a certain way, it's not just because "we've always
done it like that" but because of very good reasons that are not immediately
apparent to outsiders - or even insiders.

Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?

Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.

Which is why any radio service continues to exist, really.

Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we
decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have
over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well,
what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly.
But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has
always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game
plan.

Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back
in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the
written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2
years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was
lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules
changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" writes:
Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

It's also important to monitor the actual results of changes. For example, back
in April of 2000, code testing was reduced to a single 5 wpm test *and* the
written tests were reduced. Did we get lots more new hams? Nope - in 3-1/2
years, the ARS in the USA has grown by less than 10,000. What we did get was
lots of upgrades by already-licensed hams in the year or so following the rules
changes, then a slowdown to nearly the rates before the changes.

Boy, that's really misleading (though I assume unintentionally). You ask
a rhetorical question about "new hams", but then quote a number (10,000)
which is something else.

In the 41 months since restructuring, about 70,000 new hams have been
licensed. That's an average of 1670 new hams per month. About 10% of
current ARS licensees obtained their license since the April 2000
restructuring.

For comparison, in the 34 months prior to restructuring about 48,000 new
hams were licensed in the ARS. That's an average of about 1410 new hams
per month.

It seems, then, that the rate at which new hams entered the ARS increased
by about 20% after restructuring, and that this increase was sustained for
at least 39 of those 41 months (the last couple of months are suspicious).
Is a 20% increase in the number of new hams due to restructuring not "a lot",
and if not then how much would it have had to increase to be "a lot" in
your view?

Dennis Ferguson

Dee,

Thanks for your reply - my comments are in the text below:


On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:21:07 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Points well taken, Hans. I suggest, however, that the question (what
the amateur radio service would be comprised of if it were created
today) must be explored in order to validate what 'historical aspects'
of the hobby still apply in 2003 - a 'sanity check', if you will.

As I understand it, the ARS was created in early 20th century to
fulfil a need (to provide a pool of trained operators, I believe, with
experimentation and development mentioned as other objectives). This
mandate has evolved over the years, and maybe it is time to review and
bring it in-line with the requirements and technology of today.


Not really. That was the excuse that was used for the government to save
face. They really wanted to disallow amateur activity altogether when the
various radio services and regulations were initiated (see "200 Meters and
Down"). It took quite a bit of organized lobbying on the part of the
amateurs to maintain a place in the radio spectrum. After World War I, it
took a similar lobbying effort to get the government to allow the resumption
of amateur activity. They had shut it down for the war and it looked as if
they intended to keep it shut down.

Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look
for a copy.

However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of
operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the
service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some
thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today,
and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are
relevant to meet those goals.

Somehow, it's not working out quite that way....


The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!
It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!


Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.

That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this
discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot
of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train
folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services,
then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications
more easily justifiable.

I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.

Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe
have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to
usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement
that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory
requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid
technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe
otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one.

Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or
QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment
originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and
commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering
with their signals, and order them to stop. A secondary purpose may
have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur
stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 -
unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW
should assume the same status as the other available operating modes -
permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by
practical examination.

My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to
the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a
logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single
arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary
requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF.
There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and
fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer
quantifiable - but no hard reasons.

Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!

OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.

True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex
process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do
nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and
adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if
Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the
years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant
picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually
unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo
printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive.

Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it
is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in
favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because
they are the only place left to find people who share their interest
in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why,
however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be
forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other
avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a
requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the
way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a
specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is
discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory
knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within
which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because
operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to
ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal
limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities
tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all
amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when
operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons
that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the
underlying reason,


Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?


Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.

Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is
protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of
what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone.

I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking,
technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills
to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and
security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions
regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch
of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency
testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do
so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit.

Of course we should keep the history of the service in mind as we
decide what should define it today. That's an advantage that we have
over those who created it initially - we can see what worked well,
what failed, and what still works - and pick and choose accordingly.
But to argue from a position of emotion, or vanity, or 'what has
always been' - type historical perspectives - that's a fool's game
plan.

Eliminating skill and/or knowledge requirements should always be approached
with caution and some degree of trepidation. We sometimes don't know what
we need until we no longer have the ability to use that skill and/or
knowledge. Even when projecting based on past experience, foresight is far
from 20/20.

Agreed - but to remain credible, we need to be careful that we don't
overstate the real importance of, and the perpetuation of testing of,
skills that are (outside the hobby itself) obsolete and no longer in
common use. Unless we can come up with some real, tangible,
meassurable benefits of doing so.

Otherwise, it's simply a matter of personal preference!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

73, Leo

Leo wrote:


some snippage


Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look
for a copy.

Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen!


However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of
operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the
service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some
thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today,
and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are
relevant to meet those goals.

Somehow, it's not working out quite that way....

Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a
decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted
one post - mine.


The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!
It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!


Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.


That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this
discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot
of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train
folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services,
then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications
more easily justifiable.

It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure
hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing.
Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever
emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means
they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO.


I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.


Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe
have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to
usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement
that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory
requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid
technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe
otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one.

The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as
those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean
out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a
purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as
each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite
operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing.

I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the
same thing as the core.


Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or
QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment
originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and
commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering
with their signals, and order them to stop.

This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed
to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few
methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out
of the picture. So what's left?



A secondary purpose may
have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur
stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 -
unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW
should assume the same status as the other available operating modes -
permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by
practical examination.

My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to
the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a
logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single
arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary
requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF.
There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and
fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer
quantifiable - but no hard reasons.

you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to
keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions.


Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!

Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about
satellite operations!!!! 8^)

The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me
of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive
schools" where the student made up their own curriculum



OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.


True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex
process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do
nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and
adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if
Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the
years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant
picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually
unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo
printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive.

Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it
is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in
favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because
they are the only place left to find people who share their interest
in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why,
however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be
forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other
avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a
requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the
way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a
specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is
discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory
knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within
which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because
operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to
ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal
limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities
tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all
amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when
operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons
that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the
underlying reason,


Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?


Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.


Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is
protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of
what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone.

Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a
hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as
hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal
stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only
the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of
giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for
are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's
a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies.


I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking,
technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills
to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and
security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions
regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch
of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency
testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do
so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit.

But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward
thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand
why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the
removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide
that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is
beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator
between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to
do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators.

Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have
a calculator?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Leo wrote:
A different approach:

Abstract: Much of the current operating practice and licence
requirements for amateur radio appear to be the way that they are
because of the evolution that has taken place over many years since it
was first established. Politics and tradition seem to have had immense
influence over the current state of affairs - with technological
developments coming in a poor third at best. Artifacts of the past
remain 'on the books' for no other reason than things have always been
that way.

Perhaps the most critical way to look at the current code / no code /
easier tests / harder tests deadlock is to ask the question: If the
Amateur Radio Service did not exist, and was being proposed as a new
service in 2003, what would it look like?

Assuming that the same ham bands that we really do have today have
been set aside for the new service:

- What is the overall mandate for the service? (pure hobby, civilian
radio expertise development, emergency services augmentation,
experimentation, etc.)
- What modes would be allowed? (e.g. DSB AM, FM, SSB, CW, Digital
data, Digital audio, etc.)
- Would any modes be restricted or banned? Why?
- What licence classes would be created? Why?
- What privileges would each licence class be granted? Why?
- What theoretical and operating knowledge would be tested? Why?
- What modes would be practically tested? Why?

In each case above, the question 'Why?' pertains to the overall goal
that is being aimed at. If 3 licence classes are proposed, for
example, then what are the specific objectives? (example: higher level
licence can establish and sponsor a club repeater, or build and repair
their own transmitting equipment, etc. - tasks requiring a higher
level of technical and operating knowledge than a lower level
operator).

Vanity, personal preference, tradition and history should not enter in
to the equation - just technical requirements. Think analytically -
its a service being created to fulfil a mandate, the framework is
structured simply to meet that goal. Nothing more. What was
acceptable technical practice in 1910, or 1950, or 1999 is immaterial
for the purpose of this analysis - the benchmark is today, 2003. For
example - if the service was created this year, would we test CW
proficiency? And for what purpose? How about SSTV, or Amtor?

Maybe, by building a model of the service from the ground up using
2003 as a starting point, a picture of what the current service should
become may emerge?

And, in the spirit of Mike's earlier thread, let's try and keep the
mud slinging and name calling out of the equation - please!

73, Leo

It won't work, Leo. You can't summarily dismiss over a hundred years
of evolution to blithely "construct" a totally new and ostensibly
improved ARS with the wave of a magic wand. Ham radio has been around
for entirely as long as ANY radio had been here, and even the venerable
Marconi himself often stated that he considered himself to be a ham, and
certainly he was, as was every other individual who experimented on the
with the amazing new science of radio in those times.

Heh heh heh...Guglielmo Marconi an "amateur?!?!?" Hardly. :-)

He went after monetary income as well as patent control as soon
as he managed to get his new radio system practical. Try looking
at Real History, old-timer.

If you look at Leo's proposal (discounting the fact that he still hasn't
identified himself), there's nothing really amiss there. That's his
opinion and he's thought a bit about it.

A newly-constructed ham radio, built entirely from the ground up with
no regard to what has gone before, would look far more like MURS, FRS or
some legimatized version of CB than anything else, with whatever bit of
advanced digital involvement you could find anyone willing to assume.

Yes, it might result in the demise of ham radio AS YOU KNOW IT!

:-)

For the most part it has become clear that most of tne "new age"
advocates would give a pretty small nod to any other than voice modes
that are the main interest of almost everyone who wishes to take that
route. When you know nothing about (or ignore) what's already
there, spread throughout the human race around the planet, how would you
construct anything that took advantage of what is already present and in
wide use, both hardware and operator knowledge/skill? What a collosal waste!

What in the world are you mumbling about in there, old-timer?

So that puts your proposal in the same inbasket with KL7CC's "vision"-
Nothing from the past means anything and don't let's waste our time
pretending it does. At least that conclusion can easily be drawn from
his paper. To follow such a course is to abandon 100 years of MUCH more
than just tradition.

Of course, old-timer, "much" more. Perhaps even your raison d'etre
(reason for being).

Everything must, in your world, remain exactly as it was when you
were young. Forget everything and everyone else.

I'd like to see anyone tell the US Marines they had to disregard
their entire history and start all over again from scratch. Something
on the same order applies here.

So, old-timer, you serve the United States Morse Codists? That's
the USMC, ya know.

History is something that can't be
cast aside just because someone has their own vision and
prefers to ignore it.

Hmmm...sounds like some group of royalty said the same thing
in the years before 1776. Here, have a cup of tea...just in from
the harbor...

You know what happened that year, don't you? :-)

LHA