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