|
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. (SNIP) Cheers, Bill K2UNK That would require an effort on Jim's part. |
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Why should that be good enough, Bill? Nobody is checking Len's work. There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show his. He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme resistance to any corrections. He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no evidence at all, except that his opinion was different. He's also clearly not an unbiased observer. Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions? Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len. Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is? Or would his reaction be somewhat different? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Quote:
If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last tabulation)? Grow up. The Man in the Maze QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
|
From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Why should that be good enough, Bill? Nobody is checking Len's work. Tsk, tsk, tsk...has anyone checked Jimmie's "work" on his ham radio license totals? :-) Jimmie just TAKES OTHERS' NUMBERS and says they are "good." :-) The ECFS is so set up that ANYONE can go in and check my numbers, for any given day or for cumulative totals up to a certain day from any previous day. A problem is that those doing that have to READ EVERY filing in order to determine individual opinions. So far, Jimmie doesn't do his OWN U.S. amateur radio license numbers, hasn't gotten a daily high-speed download of the FCC database nor sorted them all out himself. He uses others' downloads and sorts. Tsk, he doesn't do a check-and- balance comparison against at least two other amateur license statistical tabulations. There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. There are 18 numbers in each of my postings since those of 31 August and the appearance of the Notice in the Federal Register. Not a "couple." Jimmie is in ERROR. :-) KC8EPO made a detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything like that. Jimmie is again IN ERROR. He should check out two Comments I made under WT Docket 05-235 to find attachment tables of the number and percentage of Comments of the given dates. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show his. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie is IN ERROR still. The FCC has "seen my work." Jimmie hasn't. :-) He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme resistance to any corrections. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie has just demonstrated THREE ERRORS in his single posting! No doubt Jimmie will try to rationalize everything and say all those errors of HIS are somehow "mine." :-) He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no evidence at all, except that his opinion was different. To any PCTA an NCTA's opinion is considered "wrong" if they do not favor morse code. :-) That's a given. He's also clearly not an unbiased observer. Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing. However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test issue. Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions? Tsk. What I do is VOLUNTARY. As I've said in here, ANYONE can go ahead and read each and every Comment made since 15 July 2005 on WT Docket 05-235 and do their own statistical summaries...day by day if they want. Nobody is stopping anyone from posting. As of 2 PM EDT, there were 2558 filings made on WT Docket 05-235. All are visible to anyone accessing the FCC site. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len. Suppose you GET STARTED? :-) Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is? Why? You are hardly an "unbiased observer." :-) Or would his reaction be somewhat different? Jimmie, you MUST stop imagining these alternate universes of yours. In order to "prove" what you postulate (or pustulate) you must GET STARTED in reading each and every of the 2558 Comments and present them. So far you've not done that. Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! Imagine that...an important issue in U.S. amateur radio license regulations and the self-styled guru of amateurdom hasn't posted a single Comment or Reply to Comments on WT Docket 05-235 by 13 October 2005...with the NPRM appearing to the public on 20 July 2005! [released on 15 July and appearing in the ECFS according to the date-stamp shown on the first page of their single 15 July 2005 filing] Tsk, two and a half months now and Jimmie hasn't said anything to the FCC directly...but has been in here negatively criticizing all who are against the code test! Better hurry. The official cutoff date for Comments is only two weeks away. The official cutoff date for Replies to Comments is four weeks away. Like it or not, history in United States amateur radio is being made while you sit in here and attack all those who are against your opinions on just about anything. :-) |
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 13 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 2558 585 Indeterminate (note 1) 161 51 Value for Percentages 2397 532 Against NPRM (note 2) 721 [30.08%] 166 [31.09%] For NPRM (note 3) 1311 [54.69%] 275 [51.87%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 365 [15.23%] 91 [17.04%] Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Total less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Iitoi wrote:
Wrote: But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen some of them here. Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're hardly unbiased on the subject of code testing. Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their data did not match yours, too. So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm not saying you're intentionally cooking the books..... No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting the possibility. Is "spotlighting the possibility" of something not allowed? Besides, "cooking the books" implies an intent to deceive. There's also the possibility of honest mistakes. There doesn't seem to be anybody checking Len's 'work', anyway. If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last tabulation)? Maybe. That's not the point, anyway. Grow up. What does that mean in this context? That I should accept Len's scorecard without question, just because he says so? |
|
wrote in message
oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Why should that be good enough, Bill? Nobody is checking Len's work. I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud, do your own analysis. In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long vacation I was leaving for, I stopped. There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show his. Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor of keeping morse. He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme resistance to any corrections. Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO) you don't want to do the work. He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no evidence at all, except that his opinion was different. Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or reply comments to the FCC. He's also clearly not an unbiased observer. Nor are you or I :-) :-) Why don't you pay for an independent audit. Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions? Then don't accept his numbers...do your own. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len. It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above, even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by 5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total code testing removal. Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is? Unless you do your own tally, it's only conjecture. Or would his reaction be somewhat different? Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to consider. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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: snip Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last opportunity to do so before the final ruling. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio amateurs since code testing was made optional? Has there been a significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then back to the same old levels of growth or decline. If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Why should that be good enough, Bill? Nobody is checking Len's work. I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud, do your own analysis. I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another. Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me. In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long vacation I was leaving for, I stopped. So nobody is really checking his scorecard. There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show his. Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor of keeping morse. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme resistance to any corrections. Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO) you don't want to do the work. Would there be any point to it? Suppose I "did the work" and found that Len had made significant mistakes. What do you think the reaction would be? I've "done the work" on Len's mistakes before, and the reaction wasn't very nice. Why should I bother to clean up after him again? He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no evidence at all, except that his opinion was different. Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or reply comments to the FCC. You miss the point, Bill. He's also clearly not an unbiased observer. Nor are you or I :-) :-) Neither of us is as biased as Len. Why don't you pay for an independent audit. Would it make any difference? Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions? Then don't accept his numbers...do your own. Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len. It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above, even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by 5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total code testing removal. Not exactly. Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is? Unless you do your own tally, it's only conjecture. Or would his reaction be somewhat different? Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to consider. I think you know what his reaction would be, but you don't want to say so here, because you know how he'd react. Mike Deignan was right. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... 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: snip Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last opportunity to do so before the final ruling. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. Actually you bring out a good point. IF (big if again) the FCC considered keeping the 5 wpm even if only for Extra, then the waivers would be needed again because without a treaty requirement for the 5 wpm test, there's no reason waivers shouldn't be available. (SNIP) CHEERS AND THANKS, Bill K2UNK |
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud, do your own analysis. I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another. Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me. In the end, what you or I think about Len's numbers makes no difference. Let's assume Len files his final statistics with the FCC, you can then challenge them all you want. In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long vacation I was leaving for, I stopped. So nobody is really checking his scorecard. No problem in my book. There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show his. Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor of keeping morse. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%, the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a 52% majority in favor of the NPRM. (SNIP of repeated "what if's) Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change. (Snip again) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm
On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: snip Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last opportunity to do so before the final ruling. Too much trouble for one of the "elite," Leo. :-) It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again...... No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-) Miccolis of Morse was sorely wounded in the past verbal volleys and has never fully healed. His pain (or pane) must be severe to go to such great lengths of character assassination in order to assuage that pain. :-) shrug Just another spiteful person in this din of inequity. Just the same, James Miccolis has NOT submitted any Comment under WT Docket 05-235 nor has he posted any of his own statistics on NPRM 05-143 Commentary. All he wants to do is sit in here and make nasty to anyone who has. Pity that. The United States "amateur community" is speaking out on the code test. What they say doesn't sound good to those who became self-styled apostles of the Church of St. Hiram in their youth. Less and less of the litany of morse-is-the-best or the morsemen being the elite of hamdom. The morsemen want desperately to Rule and they can't realize that their "rule" is ending in a revolution of thought unfettered by the demands of long-ago, mostly-expired "professional amateurs" in the USA. The morsemen will grow increasingly bitter towards their end. This will only get worse and possibly remain that way for decades. Never mind that amateur radio is basically a hobby. To the amateur morsemen it is much MORE to them and their entire self-perception-of-worth is tied up in morsemanship... and their certificates (suitable for framing) achieved long ago. ============================= Back in 1958 the FCC issued an R&O creating the Class C and D Citizens Band Radio Service in the USA. Old-timer hams of back then were outraged and bitter that ordinary citizens could invade their (sacred) 11 meter band...without taking a single test of any kind! Horrors! The end of the (amateur) world to hear some of them talk at that time. I know, I had to work with some Amateur Extras and had to hear all their bitching and moaning and carrying-on. :-) Once the code test is gone in the USA amateur regulations the same bitching and moaning and carrying-on will repeat itself. That is also predictable. Pity that. |
From: on Oct 14, 2:49 pm
wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message wrote: My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL. That's nice, Len. But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Because he sez it is. Why should that be good enough, Bill? Nobody is checking Len's work. Tsk, tsk, tsk...has anyone checked Jimmie's "work" on his ham radio license totals? :-) Jimmie just TAKES OTHERS' NUMBERS and says they are "good." :-) The ECFS is so set up that ANYONE can go in and check my numbers, for any given day or for cumulative totals up to a certain day from any previous day. Is anyone doing that, Len? Yes, but YOU are NOT. :-) Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing. I'll take that as admission that you are not objective on the subject. Tsk. You are going to "take" it any which way you can in order to do your attempted character assassination. :-) However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test issue. Is anyone checking your numbers, Len? Yes. Who checks YOUR numbers on all those bimonthly USA ham license numbers you post? :-) Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions? Tsk. What I do is VOLUNTARY. You sure seem obsessed by it, though. Methodical, not "obsessed." Not near as "obsessed" as YOU are in attempting character assassination of anyone speaking out against your opinions in here... :-) As I've said in here, ANYONE can go ahead and read each and every Comment made since 15 July 2005 on WT Docket 05-235 and do their own statistical summaries...day by day if they want. We all know that, Len. But you refuse to do it. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nobody is stopping anyone from posting. Has anyone tried to stop you from posting here, Len? Has anyone told you to "shut the hell up"? Yes they have. :-) Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+ comments and give us a readout of your own analysis. Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len. Suppose you GET STARTED? :-) Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is? Why? You are hardly an "unbiased observer." :-) [morsemen are definitely NOT unbiased on the code test...] Or would his reaction be somewhat different? Jimmie, you MUST stop imagining these alternate universes of yours. In order to "prove" what you postulate (or pustulate) you must GET STARTED in reading each and every of the 2558 Comments and present them. So far you've not done that. Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! Imagine that...an important issue in U.S. amateur radio license regulations and the self-styled guru of amateurdom hasn't posted a single Comment or Reply to Comments on WT Docket 05-235 by 13 October 2005...with the NPRM appearing to the public on 20 July 2005! [released on 15 July and appearing in the ECFS according to the date-stamp shown on the first page of their single 15 July 2005 filing] Tsk, two and a half months now and Jimmie hasn't said anything to the FCC directly...but has been in here negatively criticizing all who are against the code test! [afraid of getting a rebuking Reply to Comments? :-) ] Better hurry. The official cutoff date for Comments is only two weeks away. The official cutoff date for Replies to Comments is four weeks away. Like it or not, history in United States amateur radio is being made while you sit in here and attack all those who are against your opinions on just about anything. :-) Gee, Len, you've just shown once again how predictable your behavior here really is. Is THAT all you can come up with? Tsk, tsk. United States amateur radio history is happening NOW. We are all (well, most) in the NOW, not living in some idealized past. Am I "predictable" on living NOW and being a part of history? If so, I admit it. That is REALITY. That is LIFE. I like it. All those Comments and Replies to Comments will be on file with the FCC in their Reading Room long after a final R&O on the NPRM is issued. It isn't ephemeral like some Google archive. All Comments will be there and on public view at the FCC. Official stuff. It's not some fantasy playground where you can play at lording it over others in a newsgroup. It's "put up or shut up" time, Jimmie. One or the other. |
|
|
Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance. |
"StatHaldol" wrote in message oups.com... Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance. Don't believe so. They can take as long as they want to. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Docket Scorecard
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: snip Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by James Miccolis! That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last opportunity to do so before the final ruling. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't think that there was any possibility that it would be retained as an option in Canada either - but it was! It ain't over 'till it's over..... Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Maybe. Maybe not. Are you sugesting that the comment period serves no purpose - it exists merely as a legislated necessity, to be disregarded by the FCC at will? And, of course, the same rules apply here as to those who complain about elected officials but did not vote in their election..... Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? Well, considering that you have been formulating your opinion on this subject for years, I wouldn't expect that it would take too long at all! Besides, the comment period was not sprung as a surprise - it's been known to be coming for a long time as well.... -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. I wouldn't disagree with your observations. However, although the treaty change gives the FCC the ability to drop code testing from the amateur license requirements, it does not force them to do so. There is still a chance that it may be retained in some form (i.e. as an option, for Extra-class licensure only, etc....) Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio amateurs since code testing was made optional? It's too early to tell yet - though I would not expect to see a significant increase in overall licenses. Acording to one of the ham radio equipment vendors here, the sale of HF radio equipment has picked up a bit, but also not significantly. Has there been a significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then back to the same old levels of growth or decline. No idea - I have not researched this. If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way too late to repair the damage. Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids - today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can rush in and get on the air would be foolish. They aren't there. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 14, 8:16 pm
wrote: From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again...... No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-) Careful, now. YOU are not permitted to profile on RRAP. YOU hold no amateur radio license. YOUR knowledge of such things is imperfect and suspect. To borrow from Flip Wilson, "da devil made me do it!" :-) |
Docket Scorecard
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: If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality of "reasons." [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question] "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way too late to repair the damage. Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids - today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them. That era was before the semiconductor devices were used en masse for consumer electronics. Those that haven't been in the electronics industry or hobby field long can't appreciate the true revolution in parts, components, ICs, etc., that virtually exploded in the overall electronics market in the last half century. [I got an Allied Radio catalog while off on the midwest trip...the 2006 issue is 3/8" thicker than the 2005 issue for 2 1/2" thickness!] Besides the personal computer hobbyist group (very large still) there are the offshoots of PC work such as Robotics (almost all micro-processor controlled) along with all kinds of mechanical parts and specialty marketing for same, model vehicle radio control (they lobbied for and got dozens of channels in low VHF just for them)(examine the market for that activity, from "park flyers" to R/C helicopters, very big). Coming up are a plethora of "gadget" constructors and experimenters doing many things from home security to infra-red communications, instrumentation of all kinds (check out the last decade of Scientific American's "home scientist" column). Since 1958 we've all seen the appearance of communications satellites making live international TV a reality, watched the first men on the moon in live TV, seen the first of the cellular telephones, cordless telephones become a part of our social structure, CDs replacing vinyl disks for music, DVDs that replaced VHS, "Pong" growing from a cocktail bar game to rather sophisticated computer games (in their own specialized enclosures), digital voice on handheld transceivers for FRS (in the USA) unlicensed use, Bluetooth appliances for cell phones, the Internet (only 14 years old) spreading throughout most of the world and mail-order over the 'net becoming a standard thing that built Amazon.com into a money- maker of huge proportions. Besides the already-available "text messaging" and imaging over cell phones, look for even more startling developments in that now-ubiquitous pocket sized appliance. My wife got a new cell phone before we left on a 5000 mile trip to Wisconsin and back. All along I-15, I-80, I-5 that cell phone worked just fine inside the car, wife getting her e-mail forwarded from AOL, then making several calls for new reservations (we changed routes coming back) at motels, getting voice mail from the cat sitter service, calling to her sister and niece in WA state from Iowa. Emergency comms through 911 service is now possible along highways, even in the more remote parts of Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can rush in and get on the air would be foolish. They aren't there. I think that is a valid observation. Had the "revolution" begun earlier here, such as prior to the no-code-test Technician class (USA) license of 1991, there might have been more growth. In terms of CODED amateur radio licenses, those license numbers would have SHRUNK by now without that no-code-test Tech class. For over two years there has been a continual reduction in the number USA amateur radio licenses. The majority of NEW licensees come in via the no-code-test Tech class but they can't overcome the EXPIRATIONS of already-granted licenses. The morsemen acolytes of the Church of St. Hiram just can't understand all of that. They bought into certain concepts in their formative years and haven't been able to see that the rest of the world changed around them. It may not be too late to reverse but it will be a formidable task to increase the ham license numbers, impossible using old cliche'-ridden paradigms. |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
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: If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality of "reasons." [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question] Precisely so - and, it is indicative of the assumption that code testing is currently under review because it is perceived as a "problem". This is, of course, not the case. "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. Agreed - the review of the requirement is based entirely upon an change of requirements in an international treaty. The regulators create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to the amateur community to promote it and drive growth. Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way too late to repair the damage. Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back when you and I were kids - today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things competing with it. One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them. That era was before the semiconductor devices were used en masse for consumer electronics. Those that haven't been in the electronics industry or hobby field long can't appreciate the true revolution in parts, components, ICs, etc., that virtually exploded in the overall electronics market in the last half century. [I got an Allied Radio catalog while off on the midwest trip...the 2006 issue is 3/8" thicker than the 2005 issue for 2 1/2" thickness!] Besides the personal computer hobbyist group (very large still) there are the offshoots of PC work such as Robotics (almost all micro-processor controlled) along with all kinds of mechanical parts and specialty marketing for same, model vehicle radio control (they lobbied for and got dozens of channels in low VHF just for them)(examine the market for that activity, from "park flyers" to R/C helicopters, very big). Coming up are a plethora of "gadget" constructors and experimenters doing many things from home security to infra-red communications, instrumentation of all kinds (check out the last decade of Scientific American's "home scientist" column). Since 1958 we've all seen the appearance of communications satellites making live international TV a reality, watched the first men on the moon in live TV, seen the first of the cellular telephones, cordless telephones become a part of our social structure, CDs replacing vinyl disks for music, DVDs that replaced VHS, "Pong" growing from a cocktail bar game to rather sophisticated computer games (in their own specialized enclosures), digital voice on handheld transceivers for FRS (in the USA) unlicensed use, Bluetooth appliances for cell phones, the Internet (only 14 years old) spreading throughout most of the world and mail-order over the 'net becoming a standard thing that built Amazon.com into a money- maker of huge proportions. Besides the already-available "text messaging" and imaging over cell phones, look for even more startling developments in that now-ubiquitous pocket sized appliance. My wife got a new cell phone before we left on a 5000 mile trip to Wisconsin and back. All along I-15, I-80, I-5 that cell phone worked just fine inside the car, wife getting her e-mail forwarded from AOL, then making several calls for new reservations (we changed routes coming back) at motels, getting voice mail from the cat sitter service, calling to her sister and niece in WA state from Iowa. Emergency comms through 911 service is now possible along highways, even in the more remote parts of Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. There have indeed been massive changes in technology over the past half century. Instant communication on a global basis is available to almost everyone now, affordably and from virtually anywhere. Sure, during natural disasters this capability is severely impacted - but in everyday life, amaueur radio can no longer compete for public interest as it once did. (why go through licensing and buy expensive radio equipment to talk with Uncle Bob in Peoria on ham radio, when you can call him up on Skype on the Internet with great audio and live colour full-motion video for free?) I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can rush in and get on the air would be foolish. They aren't there. I think that is a valid observation. Had the "revolution" begun earlier here, such as prior to the no-code-test Technician class (USA) license of 1991, there might have been more growth. In terms of CODED amateur radio licenses, those license numbers would have SHRUNK by now without that no-code-test Tech class. For over two years there has been a continual reduction in the number USA amateur radio licenses. The majority of NEW licensees come in via the no-code-test Tech class but they can't overcome the EXPIRATIONS of already-granted licenses. Along with the common assumption that code testing is an impediment to new Amateur licensees (due to no access to HF without it), there is the companion assumption that licensing is also an impediment. The theory is that if licensing was removed (as it was with CB many years ago) that the floodgates would open and the bands would become overcrowded by the stampede of new amateur operators. This is, of course, nonsense - they aren't there either. Fifty years ago, perhaps - but not now. In the three years that I have held a license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in radio communications. Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction..... We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances. The morsemen acolytes of the Church of St. Hiram just can't understand all of that. They bought into certain concepts in their formative years and haven't been able to see that the rest of the world changed around them. It may not be too late to reverse but it will be a formidable task to increase the ham license numbers, impossible using old cliche'-ridden paradigms. Agreed! 73, Leo |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: From: on Oct 14, 8:16 pm wrote: From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again...... No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-) Careful, now. YOU are not permitted to profile on RRAP. YOU hold no amateur radio license. YOUR knowledge of such things is imperfect and suspect. To borrow from Flip Wilson, "da devil made me do it!" :-) Loved that guy. Never got into the Monty Python stuff so often quoted here. |
Docket Scorecard
From: Leo on Sun 16 Oct 2005 10:34
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: If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality of "reasons." [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question] Precisely so - and, it is indicative of the assumption that code testing is currently under review because it is perceived as a "problem". This is, of course, not the case. The alleged "problem" is described as a problem by those who favor the mode and the license test that THEY passed... and will probably never have to test for again. License testing for manual morse code cognition skill simply became obsolete. A REAL problem is that those who passed the manual tests refuse to let it BE obsolete...it is an ingrained psyche touchstone, a mile-marker of how far they came once. They refuse to look at the future and OTHERS who may come later. It is a very personal thing to them. Another casual factor is human mortality. Keeping things as they were is a form of psychological stability..."all things are as they were then" and there are no new things to overcome. Keeping the status very quo is comforting to those who have become "mature." :-) It has an artificial stability sense of delaying their own demise...in addition to the nostalgia and yearning for a youth now irrevocably lost to the past. Still another casual factor is simply personal ego. Those who have taken and passed the highest-rate manual morse tests - thus achieving recognition by class - will lose their eliteness and title. [despite over two centuries of independence from the Crown, Americans are still caught up in Titles and pseudo-nobility of Status] "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre for the elimination or retention of the code test. The lack of love and worship of morsemanship should be enough. Agreed - the review of the requirement is based entirely upon an change of requirements in an international treaty. The regulators create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to the amateur community to promote it and drive growth. That is not how many of the Comments on WT Docket 05-235 down here are. :-) In many Comments elimination of the federal requirement of manual code testing will cause a near-total cessation of manual morse code use if removed! [extremists add the degeneration into anarchy and chaos, supposedly the environment of CB] In the USA the FCC was on public record 15 years ago that it did not feel that any manual morse code test was necessary for their purpose in granting USA ham licenses (FCC 90-53, a copy of which visible on www.nocode.org). However, the test requirements were still in the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R and the USA was obliged to obey it. Obsolesence in Radio Regulations finally was recognized, not only in S25.5 but in many other parts of S25. S25 was rewritten at WRC-03 and manual morse testing made optional for each adminstration. [there won't be another WRC until 2007] Since 2003, 23 countries have removed the absolute necessity of testing for manual morse skill for HF and below. It should be noted that the International Amateur Radio Union was FOR the modernization of S25 at least a year prior to WRC-03...and the optionality of code testing by each administration. One problem, a REAL problem, here in the USA is the un- willingness of the ARRL to go with the desires of the majority of American radio amateurs. They seem to cater to their core membership which is the older, code-tested amateurs. The ARRL membership is (as of July, 2005) still only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs, definitely not a majority. ARRL has to either "go with the flow" or give up saying that it "represents the ham community." There is no real membership/special-interest group competitor to the ARRL in the United States, so it doesn't seem that there is any "drive for growth" coming from such groups. Few manufacturers need the amateur radio market so it won't be them to any great extent. About the only real "drive" for anything new is plain old de facto standardization by the users themselves. Attrition will take care of old morsemen, but only in a distant part of the near future. Voice by SSB on HF became the most-used mode there by de facto standardization. Voice by FM on VHF and UHF became the de facto standard mode there. Repeaters and packet radio relay came into being by de facto standardization; regulations on such were done after the fact, not before. De facto standardization is a powerful driver of what is used where and by whom. The FCC here has tried to make de jure standardization in several radio services, succeeded in some (most notably in Mass Media Radio Service - formerly known as Broadcasting - specifically in DTV). It just isn't in the loop to impose who should do what where ahead of the de facto standardization in established radio services...the time delay of democratic-principle law, the "respondu-cantu" of NPRM-to-Comments-to-R&O is too slow. Witness the 15 years of delay between FCC 90-53 and NPRM 05-143 on manual morse code testing...in addition to 18 separate Petitions that all had to be "discussed" (and cussed). snip There have indeed been massive changes in technology over the past half century. Instant communication on a global basis is available to almost everyone now, affordably and from virtually anywhere. Sure, during natural disasters this capability is severely impacted - but in everyday life, amaueur radio can no longer compete for public interest as it once did. (why go through licensing and buy expensive radio equipment to talk with Uncle Bob in Peoria on ham radio, when you can call him up on Skype on the Internet with great audio and live colour full-motion video for free?) A lot more is coming for the average citizen if EDN and Electronic Design and SPECTRUM magazines can be believed. VoIP is an accomplished fact today, the only real drawback being some Common Carrier arguments against it. The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure." SOME amateur radio is low cost, yes, but the "independence" from the infrastructure inhibits a greater utilization of amateur radio in true emergency work (apart from the after- the-fact health-and-welfare messaging). Thirty years ago the "phone patch" was popular in connecting overseas servicemen with their families in the USA but, now that the military has the DSN with direct input to the Internet plus direct connection to stateside telephone networks, those phone patches are seldom needed; overseas military people can call home directly from nearly everywhere. "Low cost" equipment is highly debateable, even if out- rageous claims of some are corrected. Really low-cost HF transceivers HAVE to be used models, some with their insides "modified." New ones require a kilodollar across the counter minimum to set up a reasonable station. snip Along with the common assumption that code testing is an impediment to new Amateur licensees (due to no access to HF without it), there is the companion assumption that licensing is also an impediment. The theory is that if licensing was removed (as it was with CB many years ago) that the floodgates would open and the bands would become overcrowded by the stampede of new amateur operators. I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection by the OT morsemen. :-) This is, of course, nonsense - they aren't there either. Fifty years ago, perhaps - but not now. In the three years that I have held a license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in radio communications. Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction..... Can't say I've had such an experience. If it's anything at all like old-style facsimile (that I had to run tests on in 1955), it would be deathly slow in generation for a teener's normal rapid pace. :-) I have observed some older teeners at a mall using cell phones with camera-imaging capability (they were comparing styles with friends in another mall). Quick, rapid response, all appearing to know how to use their phones as expertly as anyone. We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances. Sigh...that has been happening since a half century ago. The miniaturization of nearly everything electronic is defeating the hammer-and-anvil, big-brute mentality of some hobbyists. A REAL problem I see is the attitudes of some in vainly trying to keep the old paradigms...such as amateurs are "leading the way in state of the art developments." They aren't and haven't been since the advent of solid-state electronics a half century ago. They have to give up their wish-fulfillment of "greatness in radio" and just continue to have fun with their radios as a hobby. Nothing wrong with that and perhaps better oriented mentally to just enjoy a pastime. [that's what hobbies are] Nearly 60 years ago I got interested in radio while both flying model aircraft and being a part-time worker in the model-hobby industry (Testor Chemical Co., makers of cement, "dope" the lacquer paint, and balsa wood). Today the model hobby industry is bigger than ever and the AMA, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, has a quarter million members (more than the ARRL ever had). In knowing many modelers over the years, I've not heard any of them boast of "advancing the state of the art" in aeronautics nor of being anything else but hobbyists. The technology of air, sea, and space has long ago gone FAR beyond the capabilities of model hobbyists working by themselves. The same is true for "radio," at least for the MF-HF bands used by radio amateurs. It is basically a hobby, a fun pastime done for personal enjoyment, an intellectual challenge for those who want to get into the theory of it, but also needing federal regulation due to the nature of EM propagation and interference mitigation. There just isn't any need to have any "trained reservoire" of morsemen in the amateur radio ranks, not for national needs, not for any "homeland defense," not for any worry about "terrorists" nor for natural disasters. The year 2005 is NOT 1935. Time can't be stopped. Old regulations have become obsolete, need modernization. Those who have a desperate NEED for titles, status, privilege will have to seek other venues to self-glorify themselves. There's a limit to what federal regulations can do for them...at the expense of all those who come after them who ARE the future. |
Docket Scorecard
StatHaldol wrote: Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance. not by a certain date. however if they dilly daily too long NCI will organize a campaign to put pressure on them, the FCC seems to have caved even to the threat of such presure in bring out the the NPRM when they did |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: Iitoi wrote: Wrote: But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate? Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen some of them here. Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're hardly unbiased on the subject of code testing. Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their data did not match yours, too. So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm not saying you're intentionally cooking the books..... No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting the possibility. Is "spotlighting the possibility" of something not allowed? it certainly is Besides, "cooking the books" implies an intent to deceive. There's also the possibility of honest mistakes. There doesn't seem to be anybody checking Len's 'work', anyway. then go for it no one else is conceed enough If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last tabulation)? Maybe. That's not the point, anyway. sure is Grow up. What does that mean in this context? That I should accept Len's scorecard without question, just because he says so? that you should do the work yourself or shut up about it |
Docket Scorecard
On 16 Oct 2005 15:43:37 -0700, wrote:
License testing for manual morse code cognition skill simply became obsolete. A REAL problem is that those who passed the manual tests refuse to let it BE obsolete...it is an ingrained psyche touchstone, a mile-marker of how far they came once. They refuse to look at the future and OTHERS who may come later. It is a very personal thing to them. For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on. I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones, and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on the space shuttles, and the computers in today's homes are capable of real-time communication between almost any two points in the world without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other such inconveniences. So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? We're nothing more to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call CW which is good for a laugh but little else. Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Another casual factor is human mortality. Keeping things as they were is a form of psychological stability..."all things are as they were then" and there are no new things to overcome. Keeping the status very quo is comforting to those who have become "mature." :-) It has an artificial stability sense of delaying their own demise...in addition to the nostalgia and yearning for a youth now irrevocably lost to the past. Someone much wiser than myself (I forget who) once wrote that one always retains one last bit of foolishness from childhood, that to retain all of them is to be immature, but that to surrender all of them is an even worse alternative. From that standpoint, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to maintain the status quo - for themselves. The error in judgement is in trying to force the same status quo on the rest of the world. In many Comments elimination of the federal requirement of manual code testing will cause a near-total cessation of manual morse code use if removed! [extremists add the degeneration into anarchy and chaos, supposedly the environment of CB] It has been noted previously that CB-like behavior is engaged in by some hams who have passed a code test, while at the same time there are plenty of hams who have never passed a code test who do not behave like some of the neanderthas who inhabit 11 meters, not to mention the MURS, marine VHF, FRS, and other license-free or licensed-by-rule radio services. Thus, the successful demonstration of telegraphy skills is not a character reference, as FCC has pointed out in almost exactly those words. What I haven't seen discussed is the effect of economics. One can buy a brand new CB rig for $50 or less these days. Stick a $20 mag-mount antenna on something metal and you have a CB station of modest capabilities for under $100. No code, no written test, and if you happen to be a major asshole it's not a problem either. Ham rigs cost a heck of a lot more, the cost of even used HF rigs is several times what a CB rig costs. I think that is more likely to keep the CB cave dwellers off the ham bands a lot longer than any code test would. Note that not all CB operators fit the above comments, and however unfortunately, not all hams fail to fit the above comments. In the USA the FCC was on public record 15 years ago that it did not feel that any manual morse code test was necessary for their purpose in granting USA ham licenses (FCC 90-53, a copy of which visible on www.nocode.org). However, the test requirements were still in the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R and the USA was obliged to obey it. Not really, the USA simply chose to obey it. The USA has similarly chosen unilaterally not to obey other international agreements, including one related to the use of land mines and another related to greenhouse gases and the so-called "global warming" effect. Say what you want about the lack of code testing, but at least code-free ham radio doesn't blow people's legs off or threaten to melt the polar caps and turn W1AW into an IOTA station. Obsolesence in Radio Regulations finally was recognized, not only in S25.5 but in many other parts of S25. S25 was rewritten at WRC-03 and manual morse testing made optional for each adminstration. [there won't be another WRC until 2007] Since 2003, 23 countries have removed the absolute necessity of testing for manual morse skill for HF and below. It should be noted that the International Amateur Radio Union was FOR the modernization of S25 at least a year prior to WRC-03...and the optionality of code testing by each administration. It should also be noted that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the ARRL, which appears determined to go down with the ship at least. One problem, a REAL problem, here in the USA is the un- willingness of the ARRL to go with the desires of the majority of American radio amateurs. They seem to cater to their core membership which is the older, code-tested amateurs. The ARRL membership is (as of July, 2005) still only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs, definitely not a majority. ARRL has to either "go with the flow" or give up saying that it "represents the ham community." On this point...okay, granted that ARRL does not go with the desires of the majority of US hams, but why should they? As you point out, the majority of US hams are not ARRL members. If the League seems to be carrying out the wishes of its members, this should not be any great surprise - that's what the hams who pay dues to belong to the ARRL *expect* them to do. If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their fault. It's the 4 out of 5 hams who do not pony up their dues, and then start telling their division directors to tow the line if they expect to be re-elected. There is no real membership/special-interest group competitor to the ARRL in the United States, so it doesn't seem that there is any "drive for growth" coming from such groups. It's about 30 years too late for that anyway. The gunshot wound to ham radio's figurative foot was self-inflicted in the mid-1970's when they turned their backs on no-code licensing then. Now we see the results every few weeks courtesy of N2EY's postings. The ARRL pays lip service in its electronic publications, but does little of substance to foster any serious upturn in the number of licensed hams beyond its participation in volunteer examining. By that I mean, while real change is what's needed, the League continues to oppose that change. Again, though, that seems to be the wishes of its members, or at least a majority thereof - so again it goes back to the 4 out of 5 hams who aren't League members. Few manufacturers need the amateur radio market so it won't be them to any great extent. The manufacturers can do little to encourage folks to become licensed. They could advertise in places where non-hams would be exposed to their products. Kenwood could advertise the TS-850 in Newsweek. People could get interested. Then they find out that in order to actually use the damn thing, you not only have to pass the two written tests, but you have to spend who knows how long learning Morse Code so you can communicate with the same people in the same places they just finished chatting with over the Internet, without having to spend a thousand bucks on the radio, and the idea goes out along with the magazine before next week's issue even arrives. Besides, the manufacturers are in business, their business is to sell radios, they're going to advertise to their potential customers, so their advertising dollars are going to be spent in a manner consistent with that. snip Ditto. A lot more is coming for the average citizen if EDN and Electronic Design and SPECTRUM magazines can be believed. VoIP is an accomplished fact today, the only real drawback being some Common Carrier arguments against it. I can think of some other drawbacks too, but obviously the point still stands. VoIP has even found its way into the ARS. The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure." In fact, increasingly it is neither. Rigs aren't getting any cheaper. In an effort to one-up the competition, the radio manufacturers keep adding more bells and whistles to their products, and thus adding more dollars to the price tag. A station consisting of just an entry-level HF transceiver and a wire antenna, tuner, and power supply will still set one back about a thousand bucks. As for being independent from infrastructure, while a ham station can be temporarily operated on emergency power, eventually, batteries need recharging. Generators need refueling. Alternative power sources such as solar power, or maybe a windmill, can be used, but how many average hams happen to own a windmill? And have you checked out the price tags attached to solar panels lately? And of course, adding capabilities that utilize a computer (packet, SSTV, PSK-31, etc.) increases power consumption considerably. SOME amateur radio is low cost, yes, but the "independence" from the infrastructure inhibits a greater utilization of amateur radio in true emergency work (apart from the after- the-fact health-and-welfare messaging). Thirty years ago the "phone patch" was popular in connecting overseas servicemen with their families in the USA but, now that the military has the DSN with direct input to the Internet plus direct connection to stateside telephone networks, those phone patches are seldom needed; overseas military people can call home directly from nearly everywhere. Nevertheless, I still hear MARS ops running morale patches for servicemen and women. Admittedly, though, I don't hear much of it on the ham bands anymore. "Low cost" equipment is highly debateable, even if out- rageous claims of some are corrected. Really low-cost HF transceivers HAVE to be used models, some with their insides "modified." New ones require a kilodollar across the counter minimum to set up a reasonable station. Agreed. I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection by the OT morsemen. :-) Code testing, perhaps. But, all testing? I can't agree with you there. There are certain technical requirements relative to an amateur station which require some basic knowledge on the part of the operator in order to maintain the station within those requirements. To the extent that the RF spectrum is a natural resource, the stewardship of significant portions of that resource in the hands of hams deserves some indication that an operator has the knowledge to safely operate a station in accordance with those requirements. Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around with the innards. Operators of public safety stations (police, fire, EMS, etc.), marine VHF radios, GMRS, CB, etc. may not. They have a factory rep, or a repair shop, do it for them. So do many hams, but for them it's a matter of choise, for those other guys it's the law. Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction..... Can't say I've had such an experience. If it's anything at all like old-style facsimile (that I had to run tests on in 1955), it would be deathly slow in generation for a teener's normal rapid pace. :-) Exactly. The reaction the original post was referring to is basically, "Yawn!" which is the same reaction that will result from any attempt to show how cool ham radio is by demonstrating that we can do something over the radio that the kid has already done hundreds of times using his cell phone, or a PC over the internet. The code test isn't even a factor. You're showing the kid nothing he hasn't already seen, and done, before. I have observed some older teeners at a mall using cell phones with camera-imaging capability (they were comparing styles with friends in another mall). Quick, rapid response, all appearing to know how to use their phones as expertly as anyone. There was a big deal made recently over the fact that in a contest between a couple of very experienced CW operators and a couple of cell-phone text messaging experts, the CW guys won handily. The text-messaging folks were quite surprised. The hams looked at it as a victory of sorts. Which it was. Except it's not going to make kids trade in their cell phones (which fit in a shirt pocket, run for hours on a tiny lithium ion battery, is paid for by his parents, requires no license or testing, and allows him to call anybody anywhere) for a ham station (which he has to pay for out of his allowance, requires a license and a testing process, only allows him to call other licensed hams, and can hardly be used while walking down the middle of the local mall checking out the cute ass on the bunch of girls walking ten yards ahead of him!). We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances. Sigh...that has been happening since a half century ago. The miniaturization of nearly everything electronic is defeating the hammer-and-anvil, big-brute mentality of some hobbyists. You check out the effect miniaturization has had on ham equipment, though, and you see that the state of the art has evolved since half a century ago. Compare my Kenwood TH-78A or Yaesu FT-100 of today to what passed for a "portable" radio in 1955. A REAL problem I see is the attitudes of some in vainly trying to keep the old paradigms...such as amateurs are "leading the way in state of the art developments." They aren't and haven't been since the advent of solid-state electronics a half century ago. They have to give up their wish-fulfillment of "greatness in radio" and just continue to have fun with their radios as a hobby. Nothing wrong with that and perhaps better oriented mentally to just enjoy a pastime. [that's what hobbies are] To a large extent, I agree. It does occur to me, though, that few hobbies provide the opportunity to do public service work and contribute to community efforts in disaster preparedness and such. Nearly 60 years ago I got interested in radio while both flying model aircraft and being a part-time worker in the model-hobby industry (Testor Chemical Co., makers of cement, "dope" the lacquer paint, and balsa wood). Today the model hobby industry is bigger than ever and the AMA, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, has a quarter million members (more than the ARRL ever had). In knowing many modelers over the years, I've not heard any of them boast of "advancing the state of the art" in aeronautics nor of being anything else but hobbyists. The technology of air, sea, and space has long ago gone FAR beyond the capabilities of model hobbyists working by themselves. Well, right...but then, NASA, the USAF, and the USN don't generally employ these folks as volunteer assistants, either...and it's not because they sniff too much glue, either. The same is true for "radio," at least for the MF-HF bands used by radio amateurs. It is basically a hobby, a fun pastime done for personal enjoyment, an intellectual challenge for those who want to get into the theory of it, but also needing federal regulation due to the nature of EM propagation and interference mitigation. I agree on the above. However - If you admit that federal regulation is needed, why decry "all testing" as you did earlier in your post, when you stated: I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection by the OT morsemen. :-) What other method is there, other than testing, for insuring that those individuals responsible for mitigating potential interference from their own stations are knowledgeable enough to do so? 73 de John, KC2HMZ |
Docket Scorecard
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:53 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: cut do you agree with my statement that a for a truly new arguement that the FCC would wait and study awhile? IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree, no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina, etc) no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced that points to any need for code knowledge. I agree no new reason has been presented, w may disagree in that i think if someone just came up with something truely NEW they would delay and study it but I don't expect even that Cheers, Bill K2UNK _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Docket Scorecard
John Kasupski wrote:
On 16 Oct 2005 15:43:37 -0700, wrote: License testing for manual morse code cognition skill simply became obsolete. A REAL problem is that those who passed the manual tests refuse to let it BE obsolete...it is an ingrained psyche touchstone, a mile-marker of how far they came once. They refuse to look at the future and OTHERS who may come later. It is a very personal thing to them. For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on. I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. You look at it as an either or situation. Computers are not Amateur radio, and amateur radio is not computers. Now of course, there is intermixing of the hobbies, but for anyone to think that every, or even many computer hobbiests are lost to ham radio because of some competitive factor are really barking up the wrong tree. Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. So.... the drop off is mostly Technicians who took no code test. They are gone, and it is the code tests fault? It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. One might suspect maybe they aren't all that interested in radio. As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones, and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on the space shuttles, So I guess they won't want to be astronauts either!! and the computers in today's homes are capable of real-time communication between almost any two points in the world without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other such inconveniences. 1. My telephone has been doing that ever since I knew what a telephone was. 2. If you think that Ham radio is just about talking to people around the world, that shows a part of the problem. So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? Perhaps they are interested in Radio. If not, they might want to get a different hobby.... We're nothing more to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call CW which is good for a laugh but little else. We have a lot of young hams in our area. Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. All of the Internet based "Ham Radio" transmission methods would work much much better if the radio were out of the picture. Do you really think that Echolink and IRLP is "state of the art"? But if you want to believe that Ham Radio is dying, and it is inescapable because of the actions of Hams from 25 or more years ago, then there isn't much to do about it except enjoy what is left, or turn in your ticket as a symbolic protest of our ancestors stupidity... - Mike KB3EIA - |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
From: John Kasupski on Mon 17 Oct 2005 23:37
On 16 Oct 2005 15:43:37 -0700, wrote: License testing for manual morse code cognition skill simply became obsolete. A REAL problem is that those who passed the manual tests refuse to let it BE obsolete...it is an ingrained psyche touchstone, a mile-marker of how far they came once. They refuse to look at the future and OTHERS who may come later. It is a very personal thing to them. For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on. We agree...and so do thousands and thousands of others. :-) I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). In 1975 there was only ARPANET tying in dozens of locations containing mainframes (and a very few minicomputers)...the BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) were being experimented with on a very small scale and the Internet would not be opened to the public until 16 years later in 1991. Radio amateurs had "access" to the FCC only through the United States Post Office. In 1975 the ARRL had a legal firm in DC on retainer and acted as the "representative" of U.S. radio amateurs. This "representation" was little more than a minor dictatorship of self-proclaimed "representatives" enjoying control over all those individual radio amateurs who did not want to or could not (probably due to time or intimidation of going up against government officials) directly access the federal government. ARRL "representation" amounted to the ARRL telling the feds and amateur radio members that a no-code "communicator class" license was no good for them. With so little input from individual radio amateurs, the FCC believed the ARRL was the "representative" and acceded to the ARRL's wishes. Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. The 1975-1980 period was also a high point in the explosion of new integrated circuits, newer transistors, and an opening up of new areas of electronics hobby activity that had little or no relation to amateur radio. The communications satellites were beginning to be used for worldwide communication and there were breakthroughs aplenty in many areas of electronics. Technically-inclined folks now had the first of the microcomputer SYSTEMS that they could afford and control. It was a terrific time of newness in a different kind of communications, that of direct person-to-person contact. Bulletin Board Systems took off worldwide, grew and prospered and practical futurists were planning the Internet. Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. 30 years ago (again in the 1975 time frame), most of my contemporaries in electronics engineering did NOT get into that field through amateur radio. It was just fascinating enough to them to get into and they did. This was the time of very serious advancements in the state of all electronics. While the computer industry began exploding in size and capability, so did a lot of other areas in electronics and with them came the people with interests in all of that. The old paradigms of the 1930s (not to mention the mindsets of the ultra-conservatives of "radio") did not apply to the brave new world that came 40 years after. As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones, and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on the space shuttles, and the computers in today's homes are capable of real-time communication between almost any two points in the world without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other such inconveniences. I got access to the RCA corporate computer network in 1973 after being able to use an HP 9100 programmable desk calculator for some formidable problem solving. Those old mainframes of 30 years ago PALE in comparison to the speed and memory and peripheral power of today's desktops and laptops! Clock rate of those mainframes was maximum at around 20 MHz 30 years ago but today it is 3 GHz with a RAM access rate of 200 MHz! Today I can hold a 250 GByte hard disk with two fingers yet would need two people to help me hold the "cake platter" containers for 500 MBytes worth of mass-memory storage of the 1970s. So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? We're nothing more to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call CW which is good for a laugh but little else. That's a bit severe, John. Having "one's own radio station" is FUN, a personal enjoyment, an interesting hobby. So is model railroading, Civil War reenactoring, and stamp collecting...just as the new hobby areas of robotics and general electronic gadgetry are FUN for the participants. A problem occurs when those interested in on-off keying CW HF radio take themselves too seriously, saying they are some kind of "ultimate" radio skill individuals and such radiotelegraphic skills are "needed by the nation." They've been stuck in their long-ago brainwashed period of mental conditioning that they can't really see beyond their own immediate interests...or egos. Those that want to do competitive contesting have personal enjoyment of that niche area (even though it is NOT the "sport" of physical athletics). However, some of them have glorified that niche activity of the hobby into being some kind of all-around "champions" of a hobby interest and that isn't descriptive of the hobby in general. Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The Purists in ham radio (those still in Belief of the standards and practices of the 1930s) will decry such new-fangled notions as "not being 'real' amateur radio." Just as radiotelegraphy skill is a "must" for all hams, a bit of pure mental conditioning done long ago. Someone much wiser than myself (I forget who) once wrote that one always retains one last bit of foolishness from childhood, that to retain all of them is to be immature, but that to surrender all of them is an even worse alternative. Perhaps. :-) ENJOYMENT on a personal level is not some kind of "sin." At any age. Such is NOT immaturity...but a few folks take their seriousness far too seriously and demand that all "work hard (and long)" to be "successful" in achieving OLD goals. Fromthat standpoint, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to maintain the status quo - for themselves. The error in judgement is in trying to force the same status quo on the rest of the world. Agreement 100%! Problem that I see is those individuals have so identified with their OWN goals and the imprinted "standards" of others telling them what to do, that they see themselves ranging from "role models" to absolute judges of what all MUST do. What they don't realize is that those old standards and practices did NOT suddenly arrive on the amateur radio scene from a divine source...they EVOLVED during the beginning of radio. Yet, inexplicably, those standards and practices "must" be retained WITHOUT any benefit for FURTHER evolving! :-) It has been noted previously that CB-like behavior is engaged in by some hams who have passed a code test, while at the same time there are plenty of hams who have never passed a code test who do not behave like some of the neanderthas who inhabit 11 meters, not to mention the MURS, marine VHF, FRS, and other license-free or licensed-by-rule radio services. Thus, the successful demonstration of telegraphy skills is not a character reference, as FCC has pointed out in almost exactly those words. I question that the "CB behavior" is "bad" in any form. :-) It is only against the OLD HAM STANDARDS of strict, absolute maintenance of approved old-style procedure and protocol of AMATEURS. What these purists don't (or can't) understand is that ham procedure and protocol would be laughed at by some other radio services. The professionals in radiotelegraphy already bestowed the "ham" pejorative on amateurs long ago; some old-timer hams enjoy playing the part of using "professional conduct" yet don't realize how they got their moniker. :-) It's difficult to be emotional at 10 words per minute CW. :-) In the USA the FCC was on public record 15 years ago that it did not feel that any manual morse code test was necessary for their purpose in granting USA ham licenses (FCC 90-53, a copy of which visible on www.nocode.org). However, the test requirements were still in the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R and the USA was obliged to obey it. Not really, the USA simply chose to obey it. The USA has similarly chosen unilaterally not to obey other international agreements, including one related to the use of land mines and another related to greenhouse gases and the so-called "global warming" effect. Political views on OTHER things aside, the USA has so MANY international communications activities going that it would be international political disaster to ignore agreement with ITU-R radio regulations. They MUST agree in order to keep the EM environment open; disregarding it would upset all common communications with others. Don't forget that a chaotic, unregulated EM environment would impact US just as much as the USA could impact others by no following regulatory agreements. Obsolesence in Radio Regulations finally was recognized, not only in S25.5 but in many other parts of S25. S25 was rewritten at WRC-03 and manual morse testing made optional for each adminstration. [there won't be another WRC until 2007] Since 2003, 23 countries have removed the absolute necessity of testing for manual morse skill for HF and below. It should be noted that the International Amateur Radio Union was FOR the modernization of S25 at least a year prior to WRC-03...and the optionality of code testing by each administration. It should also be noted that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the ARRL, which appears determined to go down with the ship at least. Many think that the ARRL can do no wrong. They get very disturbed if Big Brother is described negatively. :-) On this point...okay, granted that ARRL does not go with the desires of the majority of US hams, but why should they? As you point out, the majority of US hams are not ARRL members. If the League seems to be carrying out the wishes of its members, this should not be any great surprise - that's what the hams who pay dues to belong to the ARRL *expect* them to do. The ARRL ought to quit playing at it being a "representative body" for radio amateurs. Its officials seem to get a kick out of controling the membership. Control is power. But, they are "official" and say so. :-) If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their fault. It is ABSOLUTELY their fault. It's the 4 out of 5 hams who do not pony up their dues, and then start telling their division directors to tow the line if they expect to be re-elected. Disagree. There is NO federal regulation that says U.S. radio amateurs MUST belong to some organization. Ergo, they don't have to "pony up any dues." Who says those "division directors" have to "tow any line?" They are NOT governed by any federal laws regarding "representation," have NO checks-and-balances inherent to the federal or state governments. A private membership organization is NOT some branch or agency of the federal government...even though the ARRL loves to play at that. There is no real membership/special-interest group competitor to the ARRL in the United States, so it doesn't seem that there is any "drive for growth" coming from such groups. It's about 30 years too late for that anyway. The gunshot wound to ham radio's figurative foot was self-inflicted in the mid-1970's when they turned their backs on no-code licensing then. Now we see the results every few weeks courtesy of N2EY's postings. James Miccolis' postings just repeat what another private organization does in tabulating publicly-available federal government databases. [no one "checks his work"...:-) ] Ah, but the ARRL decreed to all [USA] radio amateurs on what they "should' think back 30 years ago. Ergo, they ARE responsible for not attracting more members than they have. The ARRL pays lip service in its electronic publications, but does little of substance to foster any serious upturn in the number of licensed hams beyond its participation in volunteer examining. By that I mean, while real change is what's needed, the League continues to oppose that change. Again, though, that seems to be the wishes of its members, or at least a majority thereof - so again it goes back to the 4 out of 5 hams who aren't League members. You are ignoring all those (who can't be counted) who are NOT YET licensed. The ARRL is trying its damndest to CONTROL what newcomers are required to do to get their license. The ARRL just doesn't have that sort of "right." Finally, with the opening of the Internet and all USA government agencies getting on the 'net, the federal government isn't buying into a lot of what the ARRL says or demands. The manufacturers can do little to encourage folks to become licensed. They could advertise in places where non-hams would be exposed to their products. Kenwood could advertise the TS-850 in Newsweek. People could get interested. Disagree strongly based on a century of marketing practices in the world. Manufacturers CAN do MUCH to "get folks interested" in just about anything. Advertising is BIG BUSINESS and an essential part of marketing practices. Then they find out that in order to actually use the damn thing, you not only have to pass the two written tests, but you have to spend who knows how long learning Morse Code so you can communicate with the same people in the same places they just finished chatting with over the Internet, without having to spend a thousand bucks on the radio, and the idea goes out along with the magazine before next week's issue even arrives. Tsk, the morsemen elitists state that the USA already has a no-code-test license class for amateur radio. "Not a problem" for newbies they imply. :-) A lot more is coming for the average citizen if EDN and Electronic Design and SPECTRUM magazines can be believed. VoIP is an accomplished fact today, the only real drawback being some Common Carrier arguments against it. I can think of some other drawbacks too, but obviously the point still stands. VoIP has even found its way into the ARS. Ah, but the elitist morsemen keep on claiming that morse is the epitome of radio skills and infinetly superior to just "grabbing a mike and yakking." :-) The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure." In fact, increasingly it is neither. Rigs aren't getting any cheaper. In an effort to one-up the competition, the radio manufacturers keep adding more bells and whistles to their products, and thus adding more dollars to the price tag. A station consisting of just an entry-level HF transceiver and a wire antenna, tuner, and power supply will still set one back about a thousand bucks. Ah, but one in here has shown us a single digital photo of an amateur radio HF transceiver that cost only "$100!" He built it himself. Who can argue against him? :-) I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection by the OT morsemen. :-) Code testing, perhaps. But, all testing? I can't agree with you there. Code testing WITH all the other subject matter testing. That's what the "companionship" means. The standard morsemen argument is that "if code testing is dropped, it is the 'same' as dropping all testing." Not so, but they keep on with that rationale. Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around with the innards. That's only because of the way the LAW is written NOW. That could be gone in a flash with a single R&O. Operators of public safety stations (police, fire, EMS, etc.), marine VHF radios, GMRS, CB, etc. may not. They have a factory rep, or a repair shop, do it for them. Not entirely true since a Commercial license allows them (legally) to do so. In broadcasting (now referred to as "mass media") it's possible to "mess with innards" a lot without a single legal license. Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction..... Can't say I've had such an experience. If it's anything at all like old-style facsimile (that I had to run tests on in 1955), it would be deathly slow in generation for a teener's normal rapid pace. :-) Exactly. The reaction the original post was referring to is basically, "Yawn!" which is the same reaction that will result from any attempt to show how cool ham radio is by demonstrating that we can do something over the radio that the kid has already done hundreds of times using his cell phone, or a PC over the internet. The code test isn't even a factor. You're showing the kid nothing he hasn't already seen, and done, before. Ah, but I've been told otherwise. Why, even in here, some elitist morsemen have regaled us with stories of Field Day and the "interest" generated by those skilled morsemen in communicating by morse code! :-) There was a big deal made recently over the fact that in a contest between a couple of very experienced CW operators and a couple of cell-phone text messaging experts, the CW guys won handily. The text-messaging folks were quite surprised. The hams looked at it as a victory of sorts. Which it was. It was? Maybe I should watch Jay Leno more often and "learn about radio communications?" :-) I'm still waiting for the "showdown" between "expert" morsemen and some ancient 60 WPM teleprinters run by "non-expert" teleprinter operators. Say, over a continuous 24-hour period. As it was a half century ago. Offhand, I'd say that the teleprinters would win out now as they did back then. :-) Except it's not going to make kids trade in their cell phones (which fit in a shirt pocket, run for hours on a tiny lithium ion battery, is paid for by his parents, requires no license or testing, and allows him to call anybody anywhere) for a ham station (which he has to pay for out of his allowance, requires a license and a testing process, only allows him to call other licensed hams, and can hardly be used while walking down the middle of the local mall checking out the cute ass on the bunch of girls walking ten yards ahead of him!). It's not? Awwww.... :-) A REAL problem I see is the attitudes of some in vainly trying to keep the old paradigms...such as amateurs are "leading the way in state of the art developments." They aren't and haven't been since the advent of solid-state electronics a half century ago. They have to give up their wish-fulfillment of "greatness in radio" and just continue to have fun with their radios as a hobby. Nothing wrong with that and perhaps better oriented mentally to just enjoy a pastime. [that's what hobbies are] To a large extent, I agree. It does occur to me, though, that few hobbies provide the opportunity to do public service work and contribute to community efforts in disaster preparedness and such. Well, getting an amateur radio license opens one up to some really FINE areas of self-proclamation of "being of service" and even "saving lives!" Great for wish-fulfillment. However, I still seriously doubt that most radio amateurs got their ham license to "be of service to their country." :-) Nearly 60 years ago I got interested in radio while both flying model aircraft and being a part-time worker in the model-hobby industry (Testor Chemical Co., makers of cement, "dope" the lacquer paint, and balsa wood). Today the model hobby industry is bigger than ever and the AMA, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, has a quarter million members (more than the ARRL ever had). In knowing many modelers over the years, I've not heard any of them boast of "advancing the state of the art" in aeronautics nor of being anything else but hobbyists. The technology of air, sea, and space has long ago gone FAR beyond the capabilities of model hobbyists working by themselves. Well, right...but then, NASA, the USAF, and the USN don't generally employ these folks as volunteer assistants, either...and it's not because they sniff too much glue, either. Sorry, but one doesn't "employ" "volunteers." :-) If you've followed the developments of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) you would have seen that they evolved from model radio controlled aircraft. Such model builders and their companies contracted with the DoD on prototype UAVs. "Glue sniffing" was not a standard practice a half century ago and NOT a social problem. Today, the model hobby industry doesn't use the same acetate and nitrate base glues near as much, preferring to go with epoxies and the cyanacrylic ("crazy glue") varieties. The same is true for "radio," at least for the MF-HF bands used by radio amateurs. It is basically a hobby, a fun pastime done for personal enjoyment, an intellectual challenge for those who want to get into the theory of it, but also needing federal regulation due to the nature of EM propagation and interference mitigation. I agree on the above. However - If you admit that federal regulation is needed, why decry "all testing" as you did earlier in your post, when you stated: I look on the "companionship" of code testing and all testing as a lot of rationalized, smoke-screen-for-effect misdirection by the OT morsemen. :-) As I said earlier, John, I did not "decry 'all testing'" but was using the elitist morsemen's so-called connection (the "companion- ship") of code testing WITH all other testing...and their saying that "dropping the code test is 'the same' as dropping all testing." What other method is there, other than testing, for insuring that those individuals responsible for mitigating potential interference from their own stations are knowledgeable enough to do so? More "mind control?" :-) Peer pressure? :-) "Make more laws?" That's always a simplistic argument by those who won't have to take any tests...just like the elitist morse- man can keep on demanding that newcomers take those code tests. One can make the amateur radio regulations (Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.) far more draconian than they are. Currently, Part 97 is one of the smaller Parts in Title 47 C.F.R. In one way, the recent versions (prior to the 2000 Restructuring) WAS more draconian with six license classes (there could be 60 or even 600 of those), three kinds of code test rates, all sorts of sub-divided bands, and absolute retention of everything ever transmitted using new modes such as Spread Spectrum. Is that the kind of thing you meant? Now there are only three classes, one code test rate, and the VEC QPC gets to decide on ALL questions and answers (no more sub-divided subject numbers) of any written test. There still are the minutely-detailed "bandplans" plus the "new" 60m "channels" on HF (good going, ARRL, "big boost" for the HFers). As it was in 1934, so it is in 2005...the FCC is NOT any sort of academic institution. It doesn't "teach" anything in the way of all amateurs being responsible for mitigation or even proper operation. Who and what teaches radio amateurs to BE responsible is up to others. FCC regulations are expected to be obeyed. [apparently they expect that six-year-olds can always obey and be responsible to adult laws] Licensing is only ONE tool of radio regulation. It was never a "diploma" of accomplishment and it is never a 100-percent guarantee of legal operation by anyone...although some fervently believe that. :-) "Testing" for a license grant is just part of the FCC's regulatory toolbox. It is largely a legal formality and doesn't guarantee anything other than an applicant having completed - and passed - a particular test. It doesn't guarantee anything more than a hunting license guarantees all hunting within season or that a driver's license guarantees a drive will always obey traffic laws and never hurt anyone with a motor vehicle. On the other hand, if there were NO testing, then there would be NO licenses to grant and no amateur would have a piece of official paper (suitable for framing) that allowed them to feel more important than others for having accomplished that. :-) Feel free to extrapolate "what I 'meant'" from the last two paragraphs. I'm sure someone will...and they will be wrong. |
Docket Scorecard
John Kasupski wrote:
I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. By widespread opposition by the amateur radio community. And it wasn't a stand-alone proposal - it was part of an FCC proposed restructuring that would have resulted in a 7 class "two ladder" license system, less than a decade after the "incentive licensing" changes. 1975 was also when cb was booming and FCC proposing to convert 220 to "Class E" cb. It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. You might want to check the dates, costs, and capabilities of what you're calling a "computer", John. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Those early small computers weren't much in the way of communication devices. Look up what a 300 baud modem for a TRS-80 cost... Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. In my youth the hottest thing for the techno-kids was - cars. Old cars, new cars, fixing up junkers, customizing, improving performance, you name it. For less than the cost of a new ham rig, a kid could buy an old car, fix it up with simple tools and easy-to-get parts, and get it on the road. Even kids without licenses or the wherewithal to have a car would help friends work on their cars, both for the experience and in the hope of rides once the car was running. No form of radio could compete with wheels. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). In 1977 I bought and built a Heath HW-2036 2 meter rig. Cost a bit over $300. Still have it and it still works. Heath lasted a while longer after 1977. Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. You might want to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a TV set or monitor to use it. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. "The best of a generation" went into computers? Hardly. Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. Apples and oranges. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: John Kasupski wrote: I can recall back in about 1975 or so, there was a proposal for a no-code "Communicator Class" license. It was shot down, largely due to opposition by ARRL. By widespread opposition by the amateur radio community. And it wasn't a stand-alone proposal - it was part of an FCC proposed restructuring that would have resulted in a 7 class "two ladder" license system, less than a decade after the "incentive licensing" changes. 1975 was also when cb was booming and FCC proposing to convert 220 to "Class E" cb. It was along about the same time that computers first became reasonably affordable for home use. You might want to check the dates, costs, and capabilities of what you're calling a "computer", John. A generation of technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham radio and its code testing. Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Those early small computers weren't much in the way of communication devices. Look up what a 300 baud modem for a TRS-80 cost... I think its called technical time shifting, Jim. Somehow all those early computers were imbued with all the features that the new ones have. That Timex computer can do everything my G5 can do apparently! 8^) HAW! My first "home computer" was a VIC-20 that I got used for $100. Needed a TV set to use it. No printer, no communications. The least expensive floppy drive for it cost almost $200 new... The whole argument does this sort of thing. You might consider looking up the dates and prices of some of the hardware John mentions. The facts are somewhat startling. Of course a lot of money could be saved, then as now, by buying a used computer. That was because they lost value rapidly as newer models came out. Assuming that for some reason people make a conscious choice between Ham radio and computers (and apparently between a hobby and a vocation) doesn't make sense to me. If they had more in common, maybe, but computers as a hobby tends to involve surfing the net these days, and as a vocation it means either working with programs or programming. The two don't meet except at the edges. I think the point is that computers somehow stole the spotlight from ham radio. Perhaps that's true - but would eliminating the code test have done anything to prevent it? First off, the field of "computing" covers a lot of ground, of which communcations/networking is only one part. There's also word and document processing, accounting (in many forms), graphics and image applications (again in many forms), games, training/educational applications (like learning Morse Code...), and much more that can be done on a stand-alone PC. Plus all the associated hardware. Ham radio is communications, remote control, associated hardware, and not much else, really. Technically-inclined young people have *always* had lots of alternatives. Look up "Williamson amplifier" and see how many "hi-fi" folks were building their own audio systems in the 1940s and later. Lots of other examples. Maybe people who are interested in radio would go into a radio type hobby, and people who are interested in other things would be doing other things. Simple sort of concept. Yup. Or of course we could assume that the Morse code test was what kept people from being hams, and then try to explain away why the first batch of Hams who didn't have to take a code test are the group that comprises the biggest part of the recent drop-off? Seems a strange conclusion. Whole bunch of factors. For one thing, since FCC has been renewing all Tech Pluses as Techs for more than 5-1/2 years, you can't assume that a Tech isn't code-tested just from the license class. In my youth the hottest thing for the techno-kids was - cars. Old cars, new cars, fixing up junkers, customizing, improving performance, you name it. For less than the cost of a new ham rig, a kid could buy an old car, fix it up with simple tools and easy-to-get parts, and get it on the road. Even kids without licenses or the wherewithal to have a car would help friends work on their cars, both for the experience and in the hope of rides once the car was running. No form of radio could compete with wheels. That sort of thing has become a niche activity. Part of the reason is that cars are more complex and harder to work on. Another is that increased affluence, decreased average family size and the perception of a car as a necessity have made it more likely that parents will help a kid get a car, rather than the kid being expected to do it all on his/her own. A Timex-Sinclair 1000 could be had for around $50, an Atari or Commodore 8-bit computer could be had for a fraction of what ham rigs cost (since Heathkit and many other kit manufacturers vanished around this time period as well). In 1977 I bought and built a Heath HW-2036 2 meter rig. Cost a bit over $300. Still have it and it still works. Heath lasted a while longer after 1977. Anyone using Timex-Sinclairs for ham use? I dunno, but the old 2036 still perks. Lots of older ham gear is still perfectly usable today, where old computers are usually just curiosities. Let's see...spend weeks learning an arcane code from the 1800s and then spend hundreds of bucks building a station, or skip the testing and spend $200 or so on a computer. More like $200 on a *modem*... Those early computers required that you learn all sorts of arcane 'codes' to make them work. A typo could cause all kinds of havoc, too. And the models changed relatively quickly so that what you learned on one system was usually not very useful on a newer one. The time spent to learn Morse Code is/was trivial compared to the time needed to get familiar with a new system. I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. Here are some pictures of a receiver (part of the Southgate Type 4) I built in the early 1970s for about $10. http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX1.jpg http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX4.jpg http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX6.jpg Almost all the parts came from old TVs, radios, and surplus military gear. I had access to a machine shop so I cut and bent the chassis, brackets and panels from some sheet aluminum scraps, and machined some of the shaft extenders and adapters from brass rod. The reason for the terminal strip and bunch of resistors on near the rear edge of the rx was to permit the use of tubes with odd heater voltages by changing jumpers. Some may scoff at the parts and methods used, but the fact is that the rx worked very well for its intended purpose. It was stable, selective, easy and fun to use and I had many many QSOs with it and its matching converter, transmitter and transmatch. You might want to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a TV set or monitor to use it. Seems to me that the biggest thing they could be used for is learning Basic programming. Okay. I think you mean BASIC programming. And who uses BASIC today? Heck, most people with computers don't write software, they simply use applications written by others. Thousands voted with their feet, and the best of a generation or two or three said to hell with radio and went into computers instead. "The best of a generation" went into computers? Hardly. I missed that one. I guess someone who decided to become a doctor or nurse rather than go into computers wasn't 'the best' of their generation, huh? Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as posted by N2EY every other week. It occurs to few that the guys who might have become hams 25-30 years ago if it weren't for the code test are now holding down good paying jobs in the computer industry and probably wouldn't be interested in a ham ticket now if you handed them one gratis. The fact is that most people 25-30 years ago wouldn't have been interested in a ham ticket back then either, with or without code test. Apples and oranges. Who is lamenting anyhow? I wish those new old Hams would have stuck around, but beyond that, big deal. What I take from the statistics is that an early generation of Hams got their licenses without a whole lot of actual interest in radio. These were the "honeydo" hams, who used 2 meter repeaters to get a shopping list or the like on the way home from work. Their interests lay along those lines. Nothing wrong with that, either. But it is radio as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Well along came cell phones, and the honeydo'ers went to that. Cell phones are a better technology for getting a shopping list than using a repeater. Some "honeydo" hams found themselves interested in radio beyond the honeydo aspect. Others didn't. Another subset of the dropoff is Hams who were somewhat interested in radio, but became bored. They dropped off too. Then there's the big ones: Antennas, the sunspot cycle, equipment costs, and lifestyles. My prediction of what will happen after Element 1 is history is that there will be more new hams, and a higher attrition rate. People with only a passing interest will become Hams. There is not likely to be a net gain. I won't pass judgment on this being good or bad. It is just different. Let's look at history, shall we? Say from the end of WW2 to the present time... After WW2, there were about 60,000 US hams - a tiny fraction of what we have today, even accounting for the lower population then. In the postwar years the number of hams grew rapidly, in part because some servicemen had learned radio theory and Morse Code in the military, in part because of increased affluence, improved technology, and pent-up demand. Lots of other reasons, too. By 1950 there were almost 100,000 US hams. Then in 1951 there came a restructuring that created new license classes and renamed the old ones. Supposedly the restructuring would have made it much harder to get a full-priviliges ham license, but in late 1962 the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and above. The growth of US ham radio continued until about 1964 at a rate that pushed license totals up to about a quarter million. Some see that era as a golden age for the ARS, and in some ways it was. But it must be recalled how big, heavy and expensive new ham equipment was in those times, the constant problem of TVI, etc. But about 1964 the growth just stopped. The number of US hams hovered around a quarter million for several years in the 1960s, despite the booming population and general affluence. Then in 1968 and 1969 came "incentive licensing", which made it *harder* to get a full-privileges license. Inflation made equipment more expensive and times got tough with the stagflation of the 1970s. Yet from about 1970 onward the number of US hams grew and grew, reaching 350,000 by 1979, and 550,000 by the mid 1980s. *Before* there were code waivers, and when all US ham licenses required a code test! The numbers continued to increase in the 1990s. But even though the code and written testing requirements of the '90s were far less than what was required in the 1970s and 1980s, the growth slowed down. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Docket Scorecard
wrote I think you mean BASIC programming. And who uses BASIC today? Good old MSBASIC has morphed into a slick RAD IDE called Visual Basic. It, and others of that ilk like Borland Delphi (PASCAL in an object-oriented dress), are very popular with computer hobbiests. Heck, most people with computers don't write software, they simply use applications written by others. "Heck, most hams don't build radios, they simply use radios built by others." but in late 1962 the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and above. No they didn't. Some privs (satelite stations, as at least one example) were reserved for Amateur Extras into the 70's. But other than some isolated privs like that, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra all had very similar "full" privileges going back to the early 50's. Disincentive licensing changed that in the late 60's. Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Quote:
And there are no longer any "good paying jobs in the computer industry" --- they all moved to Bangalore and Delhi and are now "not-so-good paying jobs in the computer industry". The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com