In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in
application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations.

We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike.

Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or even
if it has much of an effect at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

And when the vanity rules changed, there was naturally a spike in
application numbers - and 10 years later, a spike in expirations.

We're about 30 months shy of even the leading edge of that spike.

Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or
even
if it has much of an effect at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant
spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of
applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry
from long expiration).

By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the
arena of testing?

Kim W5TIT

In article ,
(JEP) writes:

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?

So lets see here. If the new jet airliners will fly and land
themselves, the persons that occupy the cockpit don't really need to
learn to fly. Makes perfect sense. They don't need to learn to fly
because the computer does it for them.

For that matter, why would you need people in the cockpit at all?

This isn't as far fetched as it sounds. More than 25 years ago, the BART
(transit) system in the SF area was designed to run without drivers. A lot of
basic things were (re)learned at great expense in the process....

Most of today's radio communication systems are designed to work without radio
operators. That's why MF CW on ships was replaced with the GMDRSS (or whatever
it's called) system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Steve will have to try them all on to prove me wrong. He should get
the white ones so he can wear them to work.

Brian, IMHO, what Steve does for a living is one hell of a noble occupation.
Discuss, debate, or argue about ARS related stuff all you want, but I'd cut
the man some slack wrt mentioning his job in a disrespectful light while
doing so.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever. Or
even if it has much of an effect at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no siginificant
spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of
applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or entry
from long expiration).

Quite possible.

By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the
arena of testing?

That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four
predicted dates have passed.

You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) The fact is that Morse code IS
the second most popular mode in use
in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself
is sufficient justification. (snip)

And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more
than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once
popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used.

There were never any test questions on circular analog tuning dials AFAIK.
There used to be lots of test questions on tubes but they are almost all gone
now - because most hams' rigs don't use tubes any more.

But the use of Morse Code in amateur radio is very popular. It's a big part
of *today's* amateur radio, not just its past.

There are far more hams on the air today using Morse Code than hams
using homebrew ham rigs. Yet we still test for theory knowledge even though
most hams won't ever need to use most of it.

Clearly,
unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those
if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating
that. The same with Morse code.

Yet in order to get a ham license today, one must pass written tests
containing many questions on solid-state electronics - even though
there is no requirement to use that technology. A ham who wants to
get on HF in the non-General parts of the bands using only vacuum-
tube equipment still has to pass 3 tests full of questions on solid-state
technologies, even though there is no mandate that s/he use those
technologies.

Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm
test, NOT 13 0r 20.

If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to
change that.

Apply that same logic to the written test...

(snip) Yes, I would very much "like to
continue mandating a skill test for a mode
that is all but gone from the world of
radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN
AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a
skill test for upgrading within, not entry
into, the ARS (snip)

The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC
recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."

The FCC also said that BPL was a step toward "broadband Nirvana". Heck, a
*commissioner* said that...

They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems
outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications
over the last fifty years.

Sure. Did anyone think they would contradict themselves?


They noted that "no communication system has been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability
to receive messages in Morse code by ear."

Has any communication system been designed in many years that depends
on *any* special radio operator skills?

And they said reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow
the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

But that hasn't happened. Didn't happen after 1991, nor again after 2000.

You mean the second most popular mode
in use today doesn't rate as a valid test
requirement determinator. (snip)

If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second
most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even
fifth, most popular modes?

Because none of those modes require learning specific new skills.

By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular
mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer
numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a
regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today.

On amateur HF/MF, it's the second most popular mode. And a code test is only
needed
for amateur HF/MF.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Yep - and we don't know if it will be a spike, or a bump, or whatever.
Or
even if it has much of an effect at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

You are the keeper of the "poll." I say that there will be no
siginificant
spike in application numbers. In fact, I think you'll see the number of
applicants for new licenses go down (first-time entry to the ARS--or
entry
from long expiration).

Quite possible.

By the way, what of the "poll" for when CW would be eliminated from the
arena of testing?

That was a pool, not a poll. I just updated it in its thread. So far four
predicted dates have passed.

You may just wind up being the winner of that one, Kim.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Uh huh...and you *could* validate me as a ham by inserting my callsign on
the submission.

Kim W5TIT

(No No Not George) wrote in message . com...
Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised.

Look here is DouGay Adair N8WWM trolling cb groups again why am I not surprised.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
[snip] The FCC recently said "the
emphasis on Morse code proficiency
as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose
of the service." They came to that
conclusion after looking at modern
communications systems outside
Amateur Radio and the changes that
have occurred in communications
over the last fifty years. They noted
that "no communication system has
been designed in many years that
depends on hand-keyed telegraphy
or the ability to receive messages in
Morse code by ear." And they said
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement
would "allow the amateur service to,
as it has in the past, attract technically
inclined persons, particularly the
youth of our country, and encourage
them to learn and to prepare
themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise."

That deemphasis has already occurred.
The no-code tech was instituted in the
late 1980s and the code for the higher
classes was dropped to only 5wpm in
2000. There is no need for further
deemphasis. (snip)


I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50
years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as
easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how
are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test?


(snip) Morse code/CW is unique and
cannot be covered by the written tests.
Actually (snip)


It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that
emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back
where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Nobody's forcing anybody to use it,
just learn it...and only for HF privies.


Given another statement in your reply ("unique skill...decoded by the
human brain"), that statement is rather illogical, isn't it? If the "skill"
tested is the ability to decode code with the human brain, it would seem one
would have to "use" that ability at some level just to pass the test.


At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of
discipline than proficiency. That is where
the true crux lies.


The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline. And, beyond the rules
and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either. After all,
we're not the military or a karate school.


They've already reduced the emphasis by
creating the no-code Technician ticket and
further by reducing the required code
speed for the General and Extra tickets.


As I told Dee, the reasons quoted in my earlier message for reducing
code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years,
and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any
kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of
a 13 wpm test?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/