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