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"