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?

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
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?

" So where is you point?" - Commander makes good sentence!

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

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.