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

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. :-)

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.

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......

snip



73, Leo

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

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

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

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.

wrote:


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.

Ah, here we go again, the hams are outmoded and outdated, cells phones
make ham radio obselete. Emergency officials and others who delt with
the Katrina disaster sure don't think so. Why didn't all those people in
NO and on the Gulf Coast who needed help just dial 911 on the cell
phone? Hint: Very difficult to do when the cell system is down. When law
enforcement officials couldn't communicate because their radio systems
were down, why didn't they just whip out the trusty ole cell phone and
make that important call? Hint: Very difficult to do when the cell
system is down.

So where is you point lennypoo, besides on top of your head?

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

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]

Show us how that works, Len.

One of the reasons repeatedly given for the elimination of
the code test is that it is supposedly a "barrier" to "otherwise
qualified people" who would bring "fresh, new blood" and *growth* to
amateur radio.

Were all those people wrong?

"Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre
for the elimination
or retention of the code test.

Tell that to NCI...

The lack of love and worship
of morsemanship should be enough.

IOW, since *you* don't have a high regard for Morse Code
skills, there should be no test...

Another view would be that it was a problem that is being
fixed way too late to repair the damage.

Maybe. But I don't think so.

Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back
when you and I were kids

I don't know when Leo was a kid, but I know that when I
got my ham license in 1967 at the age of 13, there were only about
a quarter-million US hams - less than 40% of today's total. The US
population back then was a lot more than 40% of what it is today.

-
today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things
competing with it.

Such as?

There was all sorts of competition when I was a kid, too.


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.

But what happened after that? You stopped the story at the most
important part, Len.

27 MHz cb was pretty well behaved at first. But by the mid 1960s
that service had big problems with rules violations. When the oil
embargoes of the early 1970s hit, cb became a major tool for truckers
and others to avoid law enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, weigh
stations, etc.

The use of radio to intentionally violate local, state or federal law
is clearly a violation of the Communications Act.

Other violations (unlicensed operation, "shooting skip", failure to
identify, use of power far above that authorized for the service)
became more the rule than the exception on 27 MHz cb. Indeed, some
began to use frequencies near but outside the authorized cb channels,
including the 10 meter amateur band.

Was cb still "excellent" in the 1970s, Len?

IMHO, one of the main reasons for that behavior was the lack of any
sort of license test for a cb permit.

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.

That's nice, Len. But how well did the cell phone work away from the
major interstates?


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.

Or maybe not. The growth of US amateur radio in the 1980s (without a
no-code-test license or medical waivers) was about the same if not
greater than the growth in the 1990s.

How do you explain that?

In terms of CODED amateur radio licenses, those license
numbers
would have SHRUNK by now without that no-code-test Tech
class.

How do you know? Would none of those people have gotten a license?

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 reduction in the number of Technician and Technician Plus licenses
exceeds the total loss.

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.

So what are your new paradigms, Len? Besides "dump the code test"?

Should amateur radio become like cb? No test at all? We've seen how
well that worked...

You've predicted a growth of 20% in a few years if the code test goes
away. Will you admit you were wrong if the code test goes away and
there isn't that much growth?

I doubt it.....