RadioBanter - Why You Don't Like The ARRL

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Why You Don't Like The ARRL (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27149-why-you-dont-like-arrl.html)

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?

It's a learners permit, NOT a license.

What's the difference?

Here in PA, a person with a learner's permit for driving cannot drive alone.
Could your learner's permit hams operate their own rigs all by themselves? If
so, it's a license.

If they couldn't/didn't learn enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

But they're qualified to have a learner's permit for 10 years.

This is a major problem with a one-shot "permit", Hans. Sooner or later
(probably sooner), someone will ask why a ham with a B license is qualified one
day and not qualified the next - even if said ham is willing and able to pass
the test again.

Can you name any other license where, if you don't upgrade within a specified
time, you lose the license you have?

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

It's not me you have to convince, it's FCC. FCC has always called them
licenses.

And no matter what they're called, it's a two-class system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.

Not a good bet, Carl! Good thing nobody will take you up on it.
Take a look at the number of new hams per year and the growth of US
licenses
from Feb 1991 until today. Then compare to the number of new hams per
year
and
the growth in a time period of the same length previous to Feb 1991.
You'll see
that that the Tech's loss of its code test in Feb 1991 did cause an
increase in
the number of new hams. But without that increase, we would not be down to
340,000 US hams by any reasonable scenario. Heck, there are ~423,000 US
hams
today who are *not* Techs - that's a lot more than 1/2 the ~683,000.

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?

I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)

But why does it matter?

You are assuming that if the Tech still had a code test, none of those hams who
got Techs would have gotten a ham license. That's not a reasonable assumption
at all.

From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers, please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code tests.

Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested. By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000 were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.

How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace them.

Depends on the dropout rate. The important thing is you *assume* that we
wouldn't have any newcomers if they all had to pass code tests. That's simply
not a reasonable assumption.

Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.

I'd say an awful lot. Look up how many new hams we got per year in the '80s
compared to the '90s.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.

The Tech hasn't had a code test for almost 13 years.

FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18 days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all in 6
years, 3 months and 13 days from now.

I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000 are
now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about half since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.

To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were code-tested is
simply not reasonable.

Here are some numbers:

In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at all.

Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the dropout rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average ham
"career" of 40 years).

Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams in 1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.

That's a long way from 340,000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

It should be obvious, Bill. US ham radio is all about "working
DX on HF with CW."

Same old song, huh? You wrote it and you're the only one singing it.
HF amateur radio is many things to many people, but you aren't one of
them.

Dave K8MN

Yes, make those heathen no-coders sit in the back of the EM
bus! Banish them to VHF and above!

No-coders "don't belong" on HF!
Well then, it's all about pride in being better than most, isn't it?

In 2003 morsemanship for licensing is an Artificial Standard.

If you want to retitle Part 97 the "Aritificial Radiotelegraphy Servce,"
be my guest.

LHA

Hey LHA. Are you even a ham? did you pass your HAM test in front of a
FCC examiner? Are you a 'NO CODE TECH'? You are correct, no coders do
NOT belong on HF. They do belong somewhere though. Maybe using kids
walkie talkies. Can't get into too much trouble there. Just check out
2 meters now. Not one put 50 ever passed a real FCC test at a FCC
office. Most used the VEC program. Just slip uncle Homer 20 bucks and
receive your Tech ticket in 4 weeks.

JEP

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?

I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)

But why does it matter?

There's a more poignant question that it reveals on the surface. Why *does*
it matter how many licensed amateurs upgrade at any given point--and what
determines whether they do or not? Anyone truly interested in the growth of
the ARS needs to know those answers for effective marketing, esepecially if
the concern is driven from a desire to see the ARS grow, rather than
maintain numbers.

For me, personally, I am happy with my Tech License and see no reason to
upgrade "just for the hell of it." The "just for the hell of it" idea has
never been a motivational factor for me in anything--personal, hobby, or
professional. So, what marketing campaign would: #1 *reach* me and, #2
motivate me to change my mind?

The ARRL has never reached me yet (can't speak for others) on a campaign to
motivate me to upgrade. The only thing the ARRL apparently successfully
*helps* with (but is not solely responsible for) is getting *new* hams
involved. If that statement is true--and it's probably more true than
not--then what does the ARRL need to do to move past just getting new folks
to the hobby/service of amateur radio? I suspect it has *nothing* to do
with license class or even requirements. When I decided to become a
licensed amateur radio operator I gave no thought at all to what it would
take to get my license; only that I needed to meet the requirements at hand.
It was only *after* I entered the service that any conginitive thought was
made as to license upgrades for the purpose of more bandwidth, privileges,
etc.

You are assuming that if the Tech still had a code test, none of those
hams who
got Techs would have gotten a ham license. That's not a reasonable
assumption
at all.

I agree with that. Based on what I said above. At the moment I considered
the hobby/service of ham radio, I gave no thought to the idea that maybe the
requirements would change. Well, in fact, I gave no thought at all to the
requirements--other than that I had to meet them to achieve my ambition of
getting a license. I think there would be a preponderance of folks who
aren't even going to be that aware of requirements and necessity at the time
they are considering entering the ARS.

If this thread is indeed still discussing the ARRL(?)--the ARRL itself needs
to consider these questions--probably needs to poll current hams and get a
professional marketing agency to figure out how to move beyond just being a
welcome mat and deciding if they also need to take on the task of getting
people to migrate to higher license classes or what those higher license
classes "get" you (because there may not always take a higher license
classes along with the privileges of the "extra" bandwidth, etc.).

From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers,
please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code tests.

It's those fluctuations in the numbers that need to be analyzed. What was
going on economically, politically, educationally, even migrationally, in
this country at those times? 200,000 vs. 133,000 in growth in two entirely
different phases of years, but the same number of years. And, Jim, I know
('least I think I know) you will agree that CW testing or not may have
nothing at all to do with the fact whether there was more or less growth at
either time. It could have nothing *at all* to do with testing structure
because, as I said, I didn't really take enough time to say, "wait a minute,
what are the requirements and will they ever change?," etc.

Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested. By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000
were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.

How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace
them.

Now, there's a question that would be really hard to get answered, but it
could be done. However, based on this discussion alone (the appearance of
growth being influenced only by whether there is a CW test or not); I think
there are more people driven by their ambition that driven by requirements.
I think if I *want* to upgrade, I am going to do it regardless of test
requirements. Really. Yes, there are some that are driven more by the
requirements--but I don't think it would end up being revealed that they are
in a majority at all. Test requirements are not a stifler or an
encouragement--either way.

Depends on the dropout rate. The important thing is you *assume* that we
wouldn't have any newcomers if they all had to pass code tests. That's
simply
not a reasonable assumption.

As much as I, being on the side of eliminating a CW (or any other mode)
requirement, would like to jump on that bandwagon, I think it's a mistake to
do so and get any real positive results out of it. However, the sum of all
the avenues of non-CW testing folks is probably the only way there will ever
be enough support to end CW testing grin.

Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.

I'd say an awful lot. Look up how many new hams we got per year in the
'80s
compared to the '90s.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them
are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.

The Tech hasn't had a code test for almost 13 years.

Is that a good comparison? The Tech may not have...but what about the Tech+
who, incidentally, has HF privileges and was that the motivating factor or
did they just want a higher class of license. How many Generals and Extras
are out there that upgraded (with or without CW) and don't ever really *use*
their privileges. Remember that the ARRL's interest would also be in having
enough numbers of hams to drive their "use them or lose them" campaigns
(boring as they may be). This, by the way, is also why I believe the ARRL
is not the successful agency it would like to believe it is. It is very
apparent that the ARRL has failed to move past being a welcome mat.

FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18
days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all in
6
years, 3 months and 13 days from now.

Hmmmm, but I will still have the same privileges as I do as a Tech+. So,
for someone who cares, where's the downside of that? I don't care if I'm
called a Tech or a Tech+--that concept is only important to some but not all
hams--but I do care whether I can get on the radio or not. And the radio I
care to get on is a FM transceiver using 2M predominantly (if at all
because, heck, I haven't been on the radio in over a year).

I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000
are
now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about half
since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.

I think Carl would find his statement to be false, or closer to false than
truth.

To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were code-tested
is
simply not reasonable.

Here are some numbers:

In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers
would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at
all.

Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we
were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the dropout
rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average
ham
"career" of 40 years).

Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams in
1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd
have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.

That's a long way from 340,000.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I agree, Jim. And, if NCI *and* the ARRL are ever going to change, or even
understand, fluctuations in the numbers and in the numbers of license
classes way more study and analysis needs to be done. Some, in fact, would
be better than none.

Kim W5TIT

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
m...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the
requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire
body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?

Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just
passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a
nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few
hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the
one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right
through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it
on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good
enough, right?

And none of this would have happened if only he had known
code? Give me a break.

I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain
about how one never plans on using it. I'm not much into the newer
digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted
communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies
leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects…no problem.
(Psst, it's a character issue.)

Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO
code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's
the harm, danger, etc?

None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code
skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual
challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the
same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture,
many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn
their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing
away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh
yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it.

After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of
having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he
plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to
remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant
of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass
that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him
"ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not
CW. ;-)

The analogy is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.)
HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the
above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's
no joke.

The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied
to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point.

Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun
intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with
the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot
from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks
involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn. If
you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the
concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was
constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers,
guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us
to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are
recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a
summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level.
Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain
that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar
will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out
those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they
have my best interests at heart.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call
them."slackers.")

The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal
of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills
to be mandated for any HF access.

I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required
effort. Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming
commence. Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20
mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code
characters.

There was, in the past, a rational reason
or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone.
It is that simple.

There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today.

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of
current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on
code testing. PERIOD!

Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re.
squeaking vs. achieving. Do you really want to focus on the code test,
Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on
and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So
you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes
for the dangerous scenario…it's the associated mentality of those
who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only
FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously
errored in their past decion(s) regarding need
or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm
amazed you and others haven't filed court action to
stop the FCC.

Quite frankly, Bill…I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however,
correct…they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes?
Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action
against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some
recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices.

Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three
years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I
knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said
before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and
the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement
appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you?

Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to
increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really
just a ticket to learn.

What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs
non-highway?

Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of
2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some
seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd
pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my
proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes."

The highway, hmm… Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on
7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel
encouraged? I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm
for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys
switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed
spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just
breezed on by with very little effort or tension.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Cheers indeed. :-)

Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
m...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the
requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to
strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first
driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car
equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were
limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we
ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the
ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic
stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead
of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about
ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him
slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why
make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire
body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for
entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?

Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just
passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a
nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few
hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the
one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right
through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it
on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good
enough, right?

And none of this would have happened if only he had known
code? Give me a break.

I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain
about how one never plans on using it.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.
Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements...
even when a specific requirement no longer has justification.

I'm not much into the newer
digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted
communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies
leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem.
(Psst, it's a character issue.)

No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions
about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test
for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other
mode is set on that pedestal.

Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO
code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's
the harm, danger, etc?

None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code
skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual
challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the
same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture,
many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn
their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing
away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh
yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it.

You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already
have done so.

After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of
having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he
plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to
remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant
of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass
that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him
"ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not
CW. ;-)

The analogy is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.)
HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the
above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's
no joke.

The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied
to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point.

Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun
intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with
the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot
from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks
involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn.

You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications
except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above,
NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point.

If
you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the
concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was
constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers,
guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us
to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are
recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a
summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level.
Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain
that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar
will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out
those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they
have my best interests at heart.

My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading
and new learning will be tied to the end of code
testing. You must have really been disappointed when
states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes.
For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted
to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as
all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that
want to learn will. Trying to claim some great
philosophical tie of ending code testing being
the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to
learn is just bunk.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call
them."slackers.")

The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal
of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need
for code skills
to be mandated for any HF access.

I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required
effort.

So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined,
unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be
trying to have in place for any license level?

Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming
commence.

It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old
ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to
memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in
the late 50s exactly that way.

Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20
mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code
characters.

Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has
already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based
on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT
is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement
determinator.

There was, in the past, a rational reason
or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone.
It is that simple.

There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today.

Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more
recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies
recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be
issued a license. Those that wish to engage in
morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it.
The issue is solely the test requirement and has no
link to actual morse use by anyone.

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of
current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on
code testing. PERIOD!

Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re.
squeaking vs. achieving.

That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one.
The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the
nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse
test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now
if code testing goes altogether.

Do you really want to focus on the code test,
Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on
and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So
you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes
for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those
who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm.

Yawn.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only
FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously
errored in their past decion(s) regarding need
or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm
amazed you and others haven't filed court action to
stop the FCC.

Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however,
correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes?
Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action
against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some
recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices.

What, no motivation? :-) :-)

Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three
years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I
knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said
before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and
the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room.

The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O
for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do.

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement
appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet
the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you?

Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to
increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really
just a ticket to learn.

Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh,
I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity
of effort for all ham licensing.

What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs
non-highway?

Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of
2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some
seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd
pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my
proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes."

The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on
7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel
encouraged?

IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of
place they'd shift to calmer waters.

I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm
for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys
switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed
spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just
breezed on by with very little effort or tension.

To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem
with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse
is allowed as long as they do so within the rules.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK