Dan/W4NTI wrote:
My oh MY....he agrees. Must be on his meds finally.

more of your hate filled bile

who peed in your cheerios Dany boy?

I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then

but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years

OTOH some good news it seems the last of the whing about how CB band
freqs were stolen from the ARS seem to be finaly over (but with the
last 5 years

Dan/W4NTI

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
KØHB wrote:
cut


I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968,
had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone.

and you are still taking no chance that the rest of us will know you
were cheated back then

I agree you were cheated and the ARRL with the FCC ****ed up and realy
screwed Ham radio, and ham

could we please move on to say this century sometime

73 de Jim, N2EY

an_old_friend wrote:
I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then

I do not think I was "cheated" or "screwed" back then because
the requirements changed. I knew they were changing, so I just
went and passed the tests.

Some, like W4NTI, were out of the country and didn't know the
change was coming.

but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years

I wasn't "whining". I was simply relating what happened, to
show that I was there and knew the dates that the new rules took
effect.

History is part of policy.

On 23 Oct 2005 05:14:39 -0700, wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:
I have always agreed that Jim and other got screwed back then

I do not think I was "cheated" or "screwed" back then because
the requirements changed. I knew they were changing, so I just
went and passed the tests.

Some, like W4NTI, were out of the country and didn't know the
change was coming.

but (he and others) are still whining about it after 37 years

I wasn't "whining". I was simply relating what happened, to
show that I was there and knew the dates that the new rules took
effect.

if it looks like whinning sound like whinning it likey is whinning
espp after the it is repeated enough times over the years

History is part of policy.

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 22 Oct 2005 12:14:29 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:

etc.

IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
TV or a movie.

Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly
popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was
made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman
was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest"
is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham.

thank been trying to remeber the title of that movie I will have to
check if it avable in in DVD

but on the tangent is my memeroy faulty or didn't those hams in voled
(the land station was a Girl ham as I recall) violate FCC rules and
use a Code in violation of the rules (except for the emergency nature
of the transmisiion

Get the BOOK version. The TV movie was so re-written (for the
worst) that I'm surprised Lehman didn't lodge a protest with
the WGA (Writers Guild of America). Truly a terrible
adaptation for TV. As for casting...well, Chad Everett was
the "lead." :-) [not even close for an Emmy nomination...]

One reason for revision argues that the original book version
had too much graphic sex in it (some, not a great deal), graphic
violence (such as machine-gunning a bunch of tourists on the
ship), alcoholism and drug use (by some peripheral characters).
No kiddies involved in the book version, only adults.

The solution to the dilemma of a hijacked cruise ship involved
the Rand Corporation and a medical doctor who had taken his
portable ham rig with him (which his wife didn't like). In
the original book version, the hijackers (a large group of
swingers, by the way) meet an unusual, topical end.
["topical," NOT tropical...]

Check with Amazon on availability...of the book. Forget the
DVD (if there is one).

Ernest Lehman was interviewed in one of the independent ham
publications, got a couple pages in CQ (?) with his picture
in it. I'm surprised that all the name-dropping superhams
in here haven't included his name in any "prominent show-biz
hams" listings. Lehman died recently. You can do a regular
search on that name and come up with many a hit on it.

Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and
movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would
you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not
to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series.

"Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie, Lady Truckers" (the whole
title) was an amusing two-hour TV movie starring Kim Darby
and Annie Potts (might have been Potts' first big role)
circa 1978. [Darby was "Sweetiepie" and Potts was
"Flatbed Annie"]

Morsemanship prior to around 1950 has been portrayed rather
often, perhaps most noted in the various versions of the
Titanic disaster of 1912. [I doubt anyone in here except
James Micollis was alive in 1912... :-) ]

It's hard to recall the large number of Westerns cranked
out between the 1930s and 1960s that DIDN'T have a scene
of a "telegraph office" with its clickety-clacking "sounder"
on the sound track. The telegrapher nearly always had on
an eyeshade and sleeve garters (must have had a lot of those
available from Western Costume Co.).

Those of us old enough to have enjoyed radio broadcasting
of pre-TV times can well remember a "newscaster" beginning
with a burst of beeping morse code and the voice "Good
evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the ships at sea."

For a WW2 adventure movie, try "Dam Busters," based on a
real event of RAF bombers destroying German dams. Black
and white, but the sound of a single morse code character
(transmitted by each bomber after doing its thing) is very
much IN the movie. [I don't remember which plane Jimmie
flew on, but I'm sure he will recall all of it vividly]

There are many, many motion pictures of the past which
included a bit of morse code (largely the radio variety
beeping) as PART of the movie. I don't recall any where
morse code was the main plot ingredient, essential to
success of the story. Might have been one somewhere,
though, its unwanted print now decaying in a vault.

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

All one has to do is "work hard" in order to
pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit
below 30 MHz as an amateur.

No, one has to study effectively. And pass the required tests -
Morse Code and written.

It's pretty clear what your story is, Len. Here's what
I think is behind all your verbiage he

Back in the mid-1950s, you decided to try for an amateur radio
license. The written test was no big challenge - you'd already
been taught the basics of radio theory at taxpayer expense in
the Army, and IIRC had a First Class 'Phone license as well.

But the Army didn't teach you Morse Code because that training
was reserved for radio *operators*, not technicians. And they
were phasing out the use of Morse Code in the Army anyway, even
though they would continue to use it for a couple more decades or
so.

Getting an *amateur* license back then required passing a
Morse Code test. And you started studying Morse Code, but
discovered that, for you, it wasn't as easy as most things
you'd learned up to that time. Plus you didn't much like the
fact that many you considered your inferiors were allowed on
the amateur bands, but you were not, regardless of your
commercial license or Army experience.

Then in 1958, 27 MHz cb was authorized, and you jumped on it.
You had fun with it for a few years, tooling around in your
radio-equipped little car. But then things changed on cb, the
band became overrun with truckers and trucker wannabes, and
the whole thing became a fad.

Of course you could have gotten a Novice license with your limited
Morse Code skills - but there's no way you wanted to be a "Novice"
anything, particularly considering that many if not most Novices then
were 'teeners'......

Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below.

Sure - but GROL licensees cannot operate Amateur Radio stations. Nor
can they have their own stations at all unless they also qualify for
a station license in some commercial radio service (like broadcasting).

That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on
27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation
conditions - be heard all over the world.

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

Do you think amateur radio should be just like cb?

Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but
there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test.

A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees
are Technician class.

You might want to check those numbers, Len.

The Technician class (exclusive of
the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as
General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes).

So?

The Technician class includes a considerable number of code-tested
amateurs.

There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what
they do when they have the license.

That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-)

No, but it's an important consideration for the future of the Amateur
Radio Service.

The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.
as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to
OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS.

From a legal standpoint, that's true.

Is there something
I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to
morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram?

Try reading the "Basis and Purpose" part with an open mind, Len.

As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back
then
seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby
than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
anywhere on
this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew
about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that
the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested
in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!

But are you and your friends a representative sample?

Why not?

Because they're a small sample.

YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample"
of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-)

I'd rather be me than you, Len ;-)

[apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan]

When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
with a ham.

In 50 years little has changed in that regard... :-)

Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely
needed?

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and
white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from
rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a
dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half
were inactive or minimally active.

"Typical?" :-)

Yes.

Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another
state?

No. You are mistaken - again.

Show us where I made such a claim - if you can.

In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and
emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in
the 4 years I was there.

Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...?

The all-girls school was right next door. Both schools are still there
and still educating young people.

The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested.
It was space for an antenna and money for equipment.

Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-)

No change.

NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days?

That requires an attic. Not everyone has one. Row houses usually don't.


Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s..

Did you ever build one? I did - from steel *soda* cans. ;-)

NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then?
[were there any parks to hold them in?]

I've been on the air at every Field Day since 1968. My score for
this year is listed on the ARRL website. I was #1 in my category
for the Hudson Division.

NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole
station for $100 then?

I did. Built stations for a lot less than $100. Pictures of
one of my receivers are on the HBR website.

Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun
thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the
necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license.

Too busy playing with car fix-ups?

Yes, for many 'teeners' of that time.

They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a
"Southgate" transceiver?

You seem to forget how much $100 really was back in the 1960s.
A week's gross salary for you, I'd expect....;-)

Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late
1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set
receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for
the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H
Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI
and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman).

That's nice, Len. But I didn't grow up in the 1940s. I was talking
about
the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Tsk, I used
my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power)
TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest
profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later.

That's nice, Len.

But I bet you never actually *operated* a Command Set station. I did.
Converted both the receivers and transmitters. Had a complete setup of
them before I was 16.

But I soon found I could build better receivers and transmitters. So
surplus became a parts source for my projects.

IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
TV or a movie.

Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly
popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was
made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman
was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest"
is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham.

And you're not.

Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and
movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would
you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not
to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series.

Where it is depicted being used to avoid law enforcement and in
violation of the Communications Act.

A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to
enable communications time-travel between deceased father and
son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and
didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural.

Then there's "Contact" in which the main character is a young radio
amateur, and amateur radio operation is fairly adequately portrayed
in the opening sequence. But the terms "amateur radio" and "ham radio"
are not mentioned in the film!

When depicted operating her amateur radio station in that film, the
main character is well below the minimum age limit you would have
imposed on US amateur radio, btw.

Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity",
what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or
"recognition by the public".

Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL
Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on
getting amateur radio more popular with the general public.
ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half
century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the
choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't
done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed
U.S. radio amateurs are members).

You know this how?

But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either
popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public.

I've done so many time, Len.

Your
aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by
any means possible.

Typical - when someone disagrees with you,
you make claims that are simply not true.

NOT a democratic-principle effort on
your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup.

Sorry, that's just not true.

On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

might change?

you still holding hope it will not change

the only question is the date


The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

not it is not

it can be flat out impossible
cut

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

not legaly premitted
but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of
thse involved at times
cut
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

might change?

Yes.

you still holding hope it will not change

Is that not allowed?

the only question is the date

It's not over till it's over.

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

not it is not

it can be flat out impossible

You're right, Mark. It can be impossible
for some people.

For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably
can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in
a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc.

But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write,
speak and understand the English language with a good deal of
fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be
'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13
or 20 wpm.

cut

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

not legaly premitted
but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of
thse involved at times
cut

Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service.

Should amateur radio be patterned after cb?

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

Oh no! Lennie got yet ANOTHER key Amateur Radio policy issue
wrong...A MAJOR one, considering the nature of thios forum....

WHO wudda thunk it?

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus."

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

More like a concious attempt to try and fold reality into his own
distorted concept.

Didn't work. Nice catch, Jim.

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

Seems that since partnering-up with Markie, some of Markie's
English comprehension issues have been rubbing off on Brain and Lennie,
including changing complete words and phrases in order to fit their
arguments even though they quote your original statement.

Pretty lame.

All one has to do is "work hard" in order to
pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit
below 30 MHz as an amateur.

No, one has to study effectively. And pass the required tests -
Morse Code and written.

I didn't have to work hard for either.

It's pretty clear what your story is, Len. Here's what
I think is behind all your verbiage he

Back in the mid-1950s, you decided to try for an amateur radio
license. The written test was no big challenge - you'd already
been taught the basics of radio theory at taxpayer expense in
the Army, and IIRC had a First Class 'Phone license as well.

But the Army didn't teach you Morse Code because that training
was reserved for radio *operators*, not technicians. And they
were phasing out the use of Morse Code in the Army anyway, even
though they would continue to use it for a couple more decades or
so.

Getting an *amateur* license back then required passing a
Morse Code test. And you started studying Morse Code, but
discovered that, for you, it wasn't as easy as most things
you'd learned up to that time. Plus you didn't much like the
fact that many you considered your inferiors were allowed on
the amateur bands, but you were not, regardless of your
commercial license or Army experience.

Strange, too, that Lennie alleges that he was once proficient to
"about 8WPM or more". Guess he was only THAT "proficient" if no one
was looking...Kinda like he "knows" all these "facts" about Amateur
Radio as long as he's got a mouse in his hand...He's scared to death of
that VE exam...

Then in 1958, 27 MHz cb was authorized, and you jumped on it.
You had fun with it for a few years, tooling around in your
radio-equipped little car. But then things changed on cb, the
band became overrun with truckers and trucker wannabes, and
the whole thing became a fad.

He probably never got more than the five channels his Lafayette
HB15 would allow him to go...Musta been frustrating with that tunable
receiver to hear those others talking and not being able to "get back"
to them.

Of course you could have gotten a Novice license with your limited
Morse Code skills - but there's no way you wanted to be a "Novice"
anything, particularly considering that many if not most Novices then
were 'teeners'......

He COULD have gone right to Technician...

Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below.

Sure - but GROL licensees cannot operate Amateur Radio stations. Nor
can they have their own stations at all unless they also qualify for
a station license in some commercial radio service (like broadcasting).

Ahhhh...He knows that, Jim...How many times have we had to remind
him that he can't operate a single transmitter with that GROL unless
it's got an FCC station license with it...Just like it says on the back
of HIS GROL!

That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on
27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation
conditions - be heard all over the world.

Sure...can be HEARD "all over the world".

Now...try and pick a discreet signal out of the caucophony of 11
meters, Lennie...

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

Do you think amateur radio should be just like cb?

He wishes it were...then he'd be vindicated.

Thankfully it's not.

Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but
there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test.

A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees
are Technician class.

You might want to check those numbers, Len.

The Technician class (exclusive of
the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as
General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes).

So?

The Technician class includes a considerable number of code-tested
amateurs.

I've signed quite a few CSCE's for guys and gals who passed
Element 1 and "only" had a Technician.

There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what
they do when they have the license.

That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-)

No, but it's an important consideration for the future of the Amateur
Radio Service.

The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.
as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to
OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS.

From a legal standpoint, that's true.

Is there something
I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to
morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram?

Try reading the "Basis and Purpose" part with an open mind, Len.

THAT'S a stretch, Jim.

Lennie's about as flexible as a pane of glass.

As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back
then
seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby
than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
anywhere on
this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew
about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that
the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested
in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!

But are you and your friends a representative sample?

Why not?

Because they're a small sample.

YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample"
of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-)

I'd rather be me than you, Len ;-)

Halleleuja on that one...

[apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan]

When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
with a ham.

In 50 years little has changed in that regard...

No thanks to "professionals in radio electronics who have had a
lifelong interest in Amateur Radio..."

I'm still waiting for Lennie to regale us with tales of all the
kids he's "mentored" in an electronics career....

Seems Lennie's real poor with his "sharing" skills...No doubt part
of the reason he so covets the Amateur allocations yet won't join
in....If he can't "have it all" he doesn't want ANYthing.....

Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely
needed?

I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and
white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from
rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a
dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half
were inactive or minimally active.

"Typical?" :-)

Yes.

Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another
state?

No. You are mistaken - again.

Show us where I made such a claim - if you can.

It's Lennie that's in "another state"...of confusion...!

In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and
emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in
the 4 years I was there.

Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...?

Such as?

Jim has kids. What happened to you, Lennie?

The all-girls school was right next door. Both schools are still there
and still educating young people.

The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested.
It was space for an antenna and money for equipment.

Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-)

No change.

NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days?

That requires an attic. Not everyone has one. Row houses usually don't.

Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s..

Did you ever build one? I did - from steel *soda* cans. ;-)

NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then?
[were there any parks to hold them in?]

I've been on the air at every Field Day since 1968. My score for
this year is listed on the ARRL website. I was #1 in my category
for the Hudson Division.

Did anyone hear Lennie and his Part 15 rig on 20 meters?

NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole
station for $100 then?

I did. Built stations for a lot less than $100. Pictures of
one of my receivers are on the HBR website.

I built the 35W crystal controlled transmitter with a single 6146
from the 69 Handbook. Used a Heathkit HR-10B receiver that I built.
After you add in some crystals and other accessories from a local
hamfest, I think I got WN8OAH on the air for under $100 in 1972.

Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun
thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the
necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license.

Too busy playing with car fix-ups?

Yes, for many 'teeners' of that time.

They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a
"Southgate" transceiver?

You seem to forget how much $100 really was back in the 1960s.
A week's gross salary for you, I'd expect....;-)

Oh no, Jim...Now we will be subjected to yet another diatribe on
how he was making "the big bucks" in "aerospace".

Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late
1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set
receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for
the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H
Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI
and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman).

There's Lennie dropping Amateur callsigns as if it means something
to him.

That's nice, Len. But I didn't grow up in the 1940s. I was talking
about
the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Tsk, I used
my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power)
TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest
profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later.

That's nice, Len.

But I bet you never actually *operated* a Command Set station. I did.
Converted both the receivers and transmitters. Had a complete setup of
them before I was 16.

What was "very modest" about Lennie's command set story was the
quantity of truth, I bet...

But I soon found I could build better receivers and transmitters. So
surplus became a parts source for my projects.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....Reminds me...Lennie STILL hasn't ponied-up some
pics or specifics on HIS "station", other than a 30 year old Icom
receiver and an un-named scanner he listens to LAX ATIS on...

It's not like it would be a technically challenging project,
considering his seven AOL accounts and their allocated "webpages" allow
the posting of multiple jpeg's or bitmap pics.

IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
TV or a movie.

Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly
popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was
made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman
was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest"
is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham.

And you're not.

And obviously you were right in this case, Jim...Wonder where all
that literary skill went to...?!?!

Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and
movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would
you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not
to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series.

Where it is depicted being used to avoid law enforcement and in
violation of the Communications Act.

Yep...criminals and rednecks...Those are the kinda folks I
would want to be associated with!

A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to
enable communications time-travel between deceased father and
son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and
didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural.

And only the laws of nature were "broken".

Not a redneck in sight.

Then there's "Contact" in which the main character is a young radio
amateur, and amateur radio operation is fairly adequately portrayed
in the opening sequence. But the terms "amateur radio" and "ham radio"
are not mentioned in the film!

When depicted operating her amateur radio station in that film, the
main character is well below the minimum age limit you would have
imposed on US amateur radio, btw.

Uh huh...And also played a very pivotal part in the character's
developing scientific future. Again, all very positive
representations.

And let's not forget "The Anderson Tapes" (how ironic!) in which a
bed-ridden youth in a high rise calls for help when thieves loot their
flats...?!?!

Again...very positive and technically accurate portrayals of
Amateur Radio.

Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity",
what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or
"recognition by the public".

Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL
Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on
getting amateur radio more popular with the general public.
ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half
century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the
choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't
done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed
U.S. radio amateurs are members).

You know this how?

He doesn't. It's a bunch of bufoonery.

But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either
popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public.

I've done so many time, Len.

Ditto. I've set up at my kids grade school...Assisted at
JOTA...done "PA" functions at Field Day sites...Taught classes...

Hey Lennie...How many kids have YOU mentored in electonics..?!?!

Even ONE...?!?!

Your
aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by
any means possible.

Typical - when someone disagrees with you,
you make claims that are simply not true.

Notice, Jim, that he puts this at the END of a lengthy, windy post
wherein he FIRST took great liberties to try and undermine any "good"
references to Amateur Radio, with or WITHOUT the "code test" being
mentioned....Seems he made QUITE A FEW refrences of his own that had
NOTHING to do with "code testing".

NOT a democratic-principle effort on
your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup.

Sorry, that's just not true.

Again, another lame swipe AFTER he has taken HIS liberties....That
is par for HIS course...

73

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
wrote:
On 25 Oct 2005 10:03:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
From: on Oct 21, 4:25 pm
Leo wrote:
On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
minute, not our easy 5.

It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.

That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.

Not in every country of the world.

But in the USA, it still is. And that's a good thing IMHO. Of course
that requirement might change in the future, as it has changed in a few
other countries pf the world.

might change?

Yes.

you still holding hope it will not change

Is that not allowed?

no such implication was made

the only question is the date

It's not over till it's over.

thankfully that is bull

The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement.

Actually, Len, it did. February 14, 1991.

The former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)

The Technician Plus did not appear right away. Only after some hams
complained that there was no obvious difference in the license class
of code-tested vs. noncodetested Techs was that class created. Late
1992 or so.

Just a simple mistake on your part. Understandable ;-)

Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.

Riiiiiiight...

Glad you agree!

ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities!

Who said that?

I wrote:

"Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods."

Is that not a fact?

not it is not

it can be flat out impossible

You're right, Mark. It can be impossible
for some people.

meaning your statement was not a fact

For example, someone who doesn't know an alphabet probably
can't learn Morse Code for that alphabet. Someone who is in
a coma probably can't learn it either. Etc.

But I find it hard to accept that people who can read, write,
speak and understand the English language with a good deal of
fluency at rates in excess of 100 wpm find claim it to be
'impossible' for them to learn Morse Code at 5 wpm. Or even 13
or 20 wpm.

who are you talikgn about there? No one I have ever heard of

cut

Sure - but cb operations in the USA are not permitted beyond a certain
limited distance (150 miles?) and that service only allows the use of
very low power, certified equipment, two modes, and 40 channels (80 if
you consider upper and lower sideband as separate).

not legaly premitted
but it can and is done at greater ranges with out even the intetion of
thse involved at times
cut

Sure. But the point is that cb is not a long-distance radio service.

not my point

Should amateur radio be patterned after cb?

never said that