I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to
drive a
buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do
with
driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is
available
or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an
advantage
and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make
them
learn to ride a horse!

Not a valid analogy at all. Try this one:

It's more like requiring all applicants to learn to drive stick shift
(manual transmission) cars, even if they only intend to drive automatic
transmission cars."

Of course the test in the USA basically equates to being able to get
the car moving, into second gear and back to a stop without stalling
out too many times, but it's still there.


I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did

it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

How many technical subjects did you learn for that test which you have
never used since? Should they also be eliminated?

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles
and
whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

Not at all.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who
knew
and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode
OF
ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy
persists.

Is something bad just because it is old?

Most hams I have met did not learn the code in the military - they
learned it in ham radio. And Morse Code use is alive and well in ham
radio.

Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their

exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

There's no math on the current exams that even requires a calculator.

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands,
tune
into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

Not on 80 meters. On 75 meters, maybe, but not 80. Believe it or not,
Part 97 lists them separately!

Note that what you describe isn't happening on CW.

As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR
anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?

I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a

half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She
gets
into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

Sounds like you're saying that there should be no requirements at all.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what
is
it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the

FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.
How will dropping the code test defend against BPL?

73 de Jim, N2EY

While this argument has been running amok for many years and probably
will for many more, it will never come to a conclusion that will please
everyone.
I, personally, would like to see the code requirement dropped, but I do
see the point of the "old-timers" that the requirement helps to keep out the
"less-desireable" people. I am still studying the code, so that I can pass
it, whether the requirement is dropped or not.
However, for the people that would like to see all the requirements
dropped, so that they can have their license with no effort, there is
already a class for them...CB and GMRS. Through CB, they have HF and unless
they make themselves a major nuisance, they can do almost anything they
want. With GMRS, they can have fun in the UHF band and even use repeaters
and some of the other electronic "toys."
Just my two cents.

Guy P. Distaffen

KB0SWS


wrote in message
oups.com...
snip
As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR
anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?
snip

wrote:
I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to

drive a

buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do

with

driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is

available

or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an

advantage

and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make

them

learn to ride a horse!


Not a valid analogy at all. Try this one:

It's more like requiring all applicants to learn to drive stick shift
(manual transmission) cars, even if they only intend to drive automatic
transmission cars."

Of course the test in the USA basically equates to being able to get
the car moving, into second gear and back to a stop without stalling
out too many times, but it's still there.

Not in California. But to go with your analogy, people that want to
drive a stick are free to do so. They don't need to drive a stick shift
to get get their licenses. Your analogy has made my point.


I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did


it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.


How many technical subjects did you learn for that test which you have
never used since? Should they also be eliminated?

I was writing about the code, not techinical subjects.

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles

and

whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.


Not at all.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who

knew

and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode

OF

ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy

persists.

Is something bad just because it is old?

Not at all. I am old, but not obsolete.

Most hams I have met did not learn the code in the military - they
learned it in ham radio. And Morse Code use is alive and well in ham
radio.


Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their


exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?


There's no math on the current exams that even requires a calculator.


If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands,

tune

into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.


Not on 80 meters. On 75 meters, maybe, but not 80. Believe it or not,
Part 97 lists them separately!

Note that what you describe isn't happening on CW.

You have made an excellent point. My point was that the code requirement
has not maintained the "purity" of the HAM bands in general.
As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR

anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?

There is plenty to know aside from the code. I would be in favor in
making the rest of test more comprehensive.


I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a


half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She

gets

into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.


Sounds like you're saying that there should be no requirements at all.

Not at all. She still had to get a driver's license.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what

is

it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the


FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.

How will dropping the code test defend against BPL?

Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby. When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass
and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left
to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the
recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long
haul. As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up.

I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in
the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up.
There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The
more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will
eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW.

I appreciate your response, Jim. I know we each are concerned about the
future of our hobby. I hope when the dust settles, our licenses will
still be good for something. 73's

In article , KD6EVM
writes:

wrote:
I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to
drive a
buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. T
Not a valid analogy at all. Try this one:

It's more like requiring all applicants to learn to drive stick shift
(manual transmission) cars, even if they only intend to drive automatic
transmission cars."

Of course the test in the USA basically equates to being able to get
the car moving, into second gear and back to a stop without stalling
out too many times, but it's still there.

Not in California.

Not in most other states, either.

But to go with your analogy, people that want to
drive a stick are free to do so. They don't need to drive a stick shift
to get get their licenses. Your analogy has made my point.

If all you want is a passenger car/light truck license, you don't need to know
how to drive a manual transmission. But for many other levels of vehicle
license, stick shift skill *is* often required.

Equate the Tech to a passenger car/light truck license, and a General or Extra
to other types of motor vehicle license, and see what conclusion results...

I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did
it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

How many technical subjects did you learn for that test which you have
never used since? Should they also be eliminated?

I was writing about the code, not techinical subjects.

Why shouldn't the written test be subject to the same criteria as the code
test?

Think about it - how much *did* you learn to pass the written test that you've
never really used as a ham?

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles
and
whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

Not at all.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who
knew
and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode
OF
ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy
persists.

Is something bad just because it is old?

Not at all. I am old, but not obsolete.

So perhaps their legacy should persist too.

Most hams I have met did not learn the code in the military - they
learned it in ham radio. And Morse Code use is alive and well in ham
radio.

Also, most hams alive today did not learn Morse Code in WW2, or even for
decades later. Of the 670,000 US hams today, more than half have been licensed
since about 1975

Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their
exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

There's no math on the current exams that even requires a calculator.

Consider this too: We still *require* all children in the US be taught, and
learn, to do arithmetic manually. Add, subtract, multiply, divide, even
fractions, decimals and some roots - all manually, to several significant
digits. Yet calculators that can do the job have been give-away items for
decades. Why force all those kids to learn to do arithmetic the old way?

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands,
tune
into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

Not on 80 meters. On 75 meters, maybe, but not 80. Believe it or not,
Part 97 lists them separately!

Note that what you describe isn't happening on CW.

You have made an excellent point.

Thanks.

My point was that the code requirement
has not maintained the "purity" of the HAM bands in general.

You mean it hasn't maintained the purity of the *phone* ham bands.

The written tests haven't maintained that purity either - even though they deal
directly with the rules and what is acceptable amateur radio on-air behavior.
Should we eliminate the written tests because they're not perfect at keeping
out a few bad apples?

I submit to you that *no* one-time test could possibly guarantee that everyone
who passes it will automatically be a good, law-abiding, courteous amateur
operator for their entire time as an amateur. That doesn't mean we should get
rid of the tests!

As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR
anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?

There is plenty to know aside from the code. I would be in favor in
making the rest of test more comprehensive.

I think if there were proposals that linked making the code test optional with
better written tests, you'd get more widespread support. But look at the
nocodetest proposals in the USA - they *all* want to just drop the code test,
and many want to *reduce* the written requirements! Look at the monstrosity
proposed by NCVEC for just one example.

But if you propose that the written tests be made more comprehensive, how do
you answer those who say that the changes will be a barrier to new hams?


I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a
half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She
gets
into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

Sounds like you're saying that there should be no requirements at all.

Not at all. She still had to get a driver's license.

Which doesn't require that she know how a car works, does it?

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what
is
it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the
FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.

How will dropping the code test defend against BPL?

Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby.

We were promised that back in 1990, when the code test for Tech was dropped. We
got a short-term surge of new hams - then the growth rate went down to *below*
what it was in the '80s.

Back in April 2000 the 13 and 20 wpm code tests were dropped completely by FCC.
The written test for Tech went from two separate elements totalling 65
questions to 1 test of 35 questions. The written test to upgrade from General
to Extra went from two tests totalling 90 questions to a single test of 50
questions. Yet today we have a few thousand *fewer* hams than back then.

Suppose the code test is dropped for a test period of, say, 3 years. If we
don;t get growth, will it be put back?

When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass
and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left
to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the
recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long
haul.

I disagree - here's why:

First off, it's difficult to know the actual number of *active* hams,
particularly considering the 10 year license term.

Second, the power industry is only interested in BPL as a revenue stream. Power
companies don't operate BPL systems, they simply lease the use of their lines
to BPL operators. Most of them will wait until a BPL system actually makes
money before they even think of jumping in.

Third, one weakness of BPL systems is that, ironically, they're sensitive to
line noise. So the power companies have to keep their lines low-noise for the
systems to work, which may erase profits.

Fourth, ADSL, Wi-Fi, and other technologies are rapidly expanding in many
markets. They offer superior performance, lower price and none of BPL's
headaches. For example, here in 19087 we have the choice of Comcast cable
broadband or Verizon DSL, to name just the two biggest competitors. I realize
that other areas aren't so well served, but they're slowly being reduced.

Fifth, BPL is several different technologies, all incompatible.

Sixth and most important: ARRL's constant opposition *is* a major factor. If
the code test is dropped, will there be lots more ARRL members and more
anti-BPL resources at ARRL's disposal? Or will it be like 1991 all over again?

As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up.

I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in
the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up.

Maybe.

There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The
more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will
eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW.

But that can only happen if we get more hams in the first place.

I think the code test is not a real barrier to people becoming hams. We have
more ways to learn the code now than ever before, in less time and with less
effort, and many of them are inexpensive or even free. For example, G4FON's
excellent code training software is a free download that runs on almost any PC.
It can teach most people enough code to pass the test in about a month of
half-hour-a-day practice sessions.

I think the real barriers to growth are things like lack of publicity,
misunderstanding of the ARS (and morse Code!), and antenna restrictions, to
name just three factors.

How many movies and TV shows have you seen in the past 10 years with ham radio
in them? I recall the movie "Frequency", which portrayed amateur radio as a
thing "people did before the internet", and never mentioned that it exists
today. There was also the film "Contact", which begins with an excellent
amateur radio sequence - again in the past - but *never* mentions amateur radio
by name! The main character doesn't do ham radio as an adult, and again the
impression could be gotten that it doesn't exist anymore.

That's two films out of how many thousand? And both of them portray amateur
radio as something done years ago, with no mention of its existence in the
present.

I appreciate your response, Jim.

I appreciate yours.

I know we each are concerned about the
future of our hobby. I hope when the dust settles, our licenses will
still be good for something.

Me too!

I'll leave you with this thought:

People today are still interested in all sorts of hobbies. Making them
"easier", however, doesn't always make them more attractive. Often what is
attractive is the fact that something is a challenge, out of the ordinary,
requires special skills, etc. This is particularly true of young people, the
ones we often say we need to attract the most.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"If it was easy, anybody could do it"

"If it was easy, anybody could do it"

Jim,

I hope you don't mind if I snipped 99% of our previous messages. It's
not because I am unwilling to challenge point for point, but rather
because, after a hard day of work, I don't have the time or energy! I
might try harder next Saturday evening, but tonight I need my rest.

I have avoided becoming engaged in this debate for several years because
I didn't feel that it was pertinent in the survival of the hobby. Now I do.

Your best arguments are those regarding the feasibility of BPL as a
technologically appropriate means of delivering high speed internet
service. The laws of physics will trump the "laws" of economics any day
of the week. My worry is that logic is often the last consideration in a
scramble for the buck. You are operating under the assumption that logic
will prevail the onslaught of megabucks in the "free" and "unregulated"
marketplace.

My major argument against your viewpoint is that the code IS a major
detriment to beginning the process of becoming a ham. When I was young
there was a MAGIC to wireless communication that simply does not exist
today. I work with students whose cell phones are far more sophisticated
than our best handhelds. They send images back and forth that the sstv
operators would die for. How much do their "transceivers" cost? NOTHING!
They are free (?) with their service! Put yourself in my position trying
to explain that they can really have a lot of fun talking with strangers
from different cultures with EXPENSIVE radios AND they need to study for
a test in order to do so.

They say, "GEE, ATT wireless never asked me to take a test to talk to my
uncle in Thailand. He's just there!"

The killer is when I tell them, "In order to talk to these really cool
strangers around the world you need to learn this really cool code that
was invented in 1844. It's REALLY slow compared with what you are used
to, but in the event of a disaster, you will really appreciate it."

To sell ham radio, we are in the marketplace of ideas. The code
requirement makes a hard sell even harder.

"If it was easy, anybody could do it," HELLOOO! Anybody CAN do it! If
you don't believe me, bop on down to your local high school and try to
sell them a top notch handheld! NO WAY! They want a cell phone that lets
them trade images and text messages.

Amateur radio has a history of being at the cutting edge of
communication technology. Has anybody else noticed that, while we have
been arguing over 160 year-old technology, we have been overtaken by
commercial digital technology?

Jim, how do you propose to stem the tide of the declining number of
amateur radio operators regardless if they are CW or phone operators?
More significantly, how do you propose that we increase OR MAINTAIN the
proportion of amateur operators relative to the general population?

I apologize if my remarks are particularly strident this evening. I
think we are far closer on this issue than you might realize. I am torn
between the simplicity of the code and the realities of the digital age.
I have had my students make and use telegraph sets while studying the
"Western Movement." They are always curious about the novelty of Morse
Code, especially with regard to the sinking of the Titanic. Between
myself and other amateurs who teach high school, I would estimate our
"conversion rate" optimistically at about 1 in 4,000. Of the same
sample, I would guess that at least 90% are cell phone subscribers.

Thinking about the Titanic, I hope we are not rearranging the deck
chairs....

I would like to discuss these issues with you on the air, but, of
course, on SSB.

TNX
Tom

KD6EVM wrote:

"If it was easy, anybody could do it"

Jim,

I hope you don't mind if I snipped 99% of our previous messages. It's

not because I am unwilling to challenge point for point, but rather
because, after a hard day of work, I don't have the time or energy! I

might try harder next Saturday evening, but tonight I need my rest.

I suggest you try answering them when you're more rested, Tom. No
hurry.

I have avoided becoming engaged in this debate for several years
because
I didn't feel that it was pertinent in the survival of the hobby. Now
I do.

Your best arguments are those regarding the feasibility of BPL as a
technologically appropriate means of delivering high speed internet
service. The laws of physics will trump the "laws" of economics any
day
of the week. My worry is that logic is often the last consideration
in a
scramble for the buck.

Agreed!

Logic and engineering judgement would replace all the make-do systems
we have with an optical fiber to each customer. Such a fiber could
deliver TV, data, broadband, POTS and lots more. Eventually we'll see
it - but not now.

You are operating under the assumption that logic
will prevail the onslaught of megabucks in the "free" and
"unregulated"
marketplace.

Not at all! The bucks themselves are now BPL's worst enemy, since FCC
won't do its regulatory job. BPL cannot compete with DSL or cable
broadband in the large markets - which is where the money is! And the
DSL/cable served areas keep growing, not shrinking. Meanwhile Wi-Fi
offers freedom from wired connections, and may eventually undercut DSL
*and* cable in cost.

What ARRL and hams have done is to gain valuable time in the anti-BPL
fight.

My major argument against your viewpoint is that the code IS a major
detriment to beginning the process of becoming a ham.

How so? The Technician license has had no code test for almost 14 years
now. Techs are hams just as much as anyone else.

When I was young
there was a MAGIC to wireless communication that simply does not
exist
today.

If that's universally true, then ham radio is doomed and there's
nothing anyone can do about it.

But I don't think it's true.

I work with students whose cell phones are far more sophisticated
than our best handhelds. They send images back and forth that the
sstv
operators would die for. How much do their "transceivers" cost?
NOTHING!
They are free (?) with their service! Put yourself in my position
trying
to explain that they can really have a lot of fun talking with
strangers
from different cultures with EXPENSIVE radios AND they need to study
for
a test in order to do so.

With all due respect, I think you're trying to sell ham radio the wrong
way. Ham radio cannot compete with commercial communications services,
and shouldn't try.

They say, "GEE, ATT wireless never asked me to take a test to talk to
my
uncle in Thailand. He's just there!"

Right - because of the enormous infrastructure beyond the cell phone.

If someone simply wants to communicate in normal situations, ham radio
is pretty far down on the options list. Always has been.

As VoIP and similar technologies become more common, it will soon be
common for people to connect via internet telephone for free - all over
the world.

The killer is when I tell them, "In order to talk to these really
cool
strangers around the world you need to learn this really cool code
that
was invented in 1844. It's REALLY slow compared with what you are
used
to, but in the event of a disaster, you will really appreciate it."

Perhaps if *your* attitude were positive about the code rather than
negative, you might have more success....

None of this is new, Tom. We're not that far apart in age. I graduated
high school in 1972 - here's what it was like for me:

Back then we all had TV, AM and FM BC radio, record players and tape
recorders, cameras and other gadgets. Every kid I knew had access to a
telephone - the rich kids had their own, us poorer kids had the family
phone, but local calls were unlimited and free. Some kids had CBs - a
few of us were hams. I went to a boys' Catholic high school that had
2500 students in 4 grades - and maybe 6 hams. Of those, perhaps 3 of us
are still hams.

We grew up watching NASA send men to the moon and unmanned probes to
Mars and beyond. I clearly remember John Glenn's flight in 1962 (when I
was 7 years old) and live TV coverage from the Apollo missions,
including watching the later missions blast off *from* the moon. Also
pictures coming from the Mariner missions to Mars, so far away that it
took a dozen minutes or more for the signals to get here at the speed
of light! What could our trivial HF "DX" offer to compare with that?

IOW, we were no strangers to radio communication. Yet amateur radio
back then was smaller and there were far fewer hams per capita in those
days than today.

To sell ham radio, we are in the marketplace of ideas. The code
requirement makes a hard sell even harder.

If you take the stand that it's a hard sell, it will be.

"If it was easy, anybody could do it," HELLOOO! Anybody CAN do it! If

you don't believe me, bop on down to your local high school and try
to
sell them a top notch handheld! NO WAY! They want a cell phone that
lets
them trade images and text messages.

Will dropping the code test create that in amateur radio?

Here's an example of what works.

Here's what one ham is doing - and has been doing for years.=AD I don't
know this ham personally, but he is right here in EPA. Note =ADthe
results and the reactions he gets. The following is a direct=AD quote:

BEGIN QUOTE

I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activit=ADy, at the

local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in the World=AD,
and it
covers many aspects of radio and television, and of course, pushes
=ADham radio.
Each year I have had several students, both boys and girls, obtai=ADn
their
license and try to help them continue on the hobby.

With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the studen=ADts were a

pleasure to work with and each year the district offers me a=AD nice
salary to teach the class and each year I decline it. Yes, it is a
lo=ADt of work,but the students enjoy it and come away with a very
positive ide=ADa of ham
radio. The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
w=ADork at
making sure I have an interesting program and that no part of it go=ADes
on and
on and on. I set the rules at the first meeting and have not had a=ADny
serious
problems. (My son and his friends have been my biggest prob=ADlem.)

If one expects the students to sit in their chairs and liste=ADn to a
presentation for an hour, after being in school all day, the=ADy good
luck. I combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part=ADs
of ARRL
videos short movies, simple building projects and computers.

Inte=ADrestingly,
the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code and se=ADem
less so
in modes connected with the computer.

I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the =ADkids obey

them and something must be going right, a few kids who were in th=ADe
previous
class always take the next year's class and we always have 35 to 4=AD0
students. In fact, my biggest problem is that other students want to
join=AD the class after it has been on a few weeks.

Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge =ADat Boy
Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for six kids. =ADI had
over
1/4 of the camp at the classes and more wanted to attend. We go=ADt a
dozen
hams out of that one.

So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about reac=ADhing out
to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just the camp alone, with
=ADeight
weeks of camp, would produce between 80 and 100 new hams....with
abou=ADt 400
Scout Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a very=AD
nice
increase in our membership.

I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new ham=ADs need
help in getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email
=ADaddress
and send them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and=AD
local
clubs.

We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people =ADin our
hobby, or we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh,=AD
it is
easier to complain...right?

END QUOTE

Note particularly when he writes:

"the students are always VERY interested in the Morse code a=ADnd seem
less so in modes connected with the computer."

A block to the license process?

Note also he's targeting the middle school kids. I got my license at 13
- 7th grade. That was after building a receiver from junk parts in
order to learn the code.

Amateur radio has a history of being at the cutting edge of
communication technology. Has anybody else noticed that, while we
have
been arguing over 160 year-old technology, we have been overtaken by
commercial digital technology?

This may be heresy to some, but the above is simply not true if you are
talking about the technology used by the vast majority of hams. It
hasn't been true since at least the 1920s.

Sure, small groups of pioneering hams have led the way. Whether it was
1XAM, 1MO and 8AB working transatlantic on 110 meters in 1923, or W6DEI
and a handful of others using SSB in 1934, or the folks doing EME,
OSCAR, SSTV, etc., those folks were the pioneers - but it took a while
for the majority of ham radio to get there, and in many cases the new
technologies remained special interests. What percentage of hams do
SSTV? EME? satellites?

Where amateur radio shines is being able to do a lot with a little bit
of technology, not from being on the cutting edge, because most of us
aren't.

Jim, how do you propose to stem the tide of the declining number of
amateur radio operators regardless if they are CW or phone operators?

More significantly, how do you propose that we increase OR MAINTAIN
the
proportion of amateur operators relative to the general population?

First off: Publicity. People need to know ham radio exists! When you
talk to those kids and their parents - how many have even heard of ham
radio before, let alone have a clear idea what it is like today?

I apologize if my remarks are particularly strident this evening. I
think we are far closer on this issue than you might realize. I am
torn
between the simplicity of the code and the realities of the digital
age.

Of course. What I'm saying is that it is precisely the simplicity and
uniqueness that is the selling point.

Anybody can pick up a 'phone and call Australia - no big deal. Just as
in my high school days it was no big deal to call the other side of the
continent. But to build a simple radio and do it directly, with no
infrastructure beyond the ionosphere? *That* was exciting!

The biggest selling point for amateur radio today - as it was in my
time - is that it is different, unique, and off the beaten path. That
it is *not* just like a cell phone, or IM, or email. That it takes real
skill and knowledge, not just a few button pushes.

That's what "if it was easy, anyone could do it" really means.

Of course not everyone wants a challenge. Not every kid wants to climb
rocks, run a marathon, bike 100 miles, build a computer from junk, etc.
The trick is to focus on those who do.

I have had my students make and use telegraph sets while studying the

"Western Movement." They are always curious about the novelty of
Morse
Code, especially with regard to the sinking of the Titanic.

Get them to watch "A Night To Remember" rather than the recent James
Cameron film. Much better IMO.

Between
myself and other amateurs who teach high school, I would estimate our

"conversion rate" optimistically at about 1 in 4,000. Of the same
sample, I would guess that at least 90% are cell phone subscribers.

Then I suggest perhaps the method needs to change. For example - do
they ever see Morse Code in use by a skilled operator? Say, someone
capable of wiggling a bug at 25 wpm, and writing down what comes in as
if it were someone talking? Most nonhams - and indeed many hams - have
not seen what Morse operation is like with skilled ops at both ends.

And the biggest selling point for a kid is that it is something *they*
can learn to do.

On recent Field Days I have run a CW station, and even "experienced"
hams are surprised by how fast we can make QSOs while they struggle
along on 'phone. The most interested folks are invariably the kids.

Thinking about the Titanic, I hope we are not rearranging the deck
chairs....

I would like to discuss these issues with you on the air, but, of
course, on SSB.

Why do you say "of course, on SSB"?

TNX

Thank you. Please consider what I've written, both in this post and the
ones preceding.

It's easy to simply blame the code test for ham radio's problems. The
solution seems simple and quick. But I think the real problems lie
elsewhere.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby. When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass
and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left
to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the
recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long
haul. As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up.

I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in
the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up.
There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The
more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will
eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW.

I think more important to the hobby is to re-farm the bands. Let's get more
hf spectrum for ssb and do away with the novice cw bands.

Roland, NK2U

"Roland Stiner" wrote in message
...
Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby. When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass
and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left
to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the
recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long
haul. As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up.

I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in
the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up.
There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The
more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will
eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW.

I think more important to the hobby is to re-farm the bands. Let's get
more
hf spectrum for ssb and do away with the novice cw bands.

Roland, NK2U



Let's refarm the bands and get more space for CW and the other digital
modes. We're getting pretty crowded down there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE