Docket Scorecard
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 31 Aug 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention are:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2023 55
Indeterminate (note 1) 101 4
Value for Percentages 1922 51
Against NPRM (note 2) 561 [29.19%] 19 [37.25%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1082 [56.30%] 28 [54.90%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 279 [14.52%] 4 [ 7.84%]
Notes:
Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August
and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and
official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left
column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates
all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard.
It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered
prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here.
Fixed-font spacing used throughout.
1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke"
or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or
polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to
do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the
scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen
submission, and six who were commenting on another
matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations.
2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST
the NPRM and against dropping any code testing.
3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the
NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself
(first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for."
4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code
test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept
eliminating the code test for other classes.
Percentage figures are calculated Grand Total less Indeterminates.
Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made,
like it or not.
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 1 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention are:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2105 137
Indeterminate (note 1) 104 7
Value for Percentages 2001 130
Against NPRM (note 2) 587 [29.34%] 45 [34.62%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1115 [55.72%] 61 [46.92%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 299 [14.94%] 24 [18.46%]
Notes:
Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August
and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and
official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left
column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates
all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard.
It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered
prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here.
Fixed-font spacing used throughout.
1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke"
or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or
polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to
do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the
scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen
submission, and six who were commenting on another
matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations.
2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST
the NPRM and against dropping any code testing.
3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the
NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself
(first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for."
4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code
test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept
eliminating the code test for other classes.
Percentages are calculated from Grand Total less Indeterminates.
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 2 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention are:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2123 155
Indeterminate (note 1) 109 12
Value for Percentages 2014 143
Against NPRM (note 2) 587 [29.15%] 45 [31.47%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1120 [55.61%] 66 [46.15%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 307 [15.24%] 32 [22.38%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 2 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1,
corrected from previous 2 Sep post due to 11 filings added on
6 Sep 05 for 2 Sep 05. Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2134 166
Indeterminate (note 1) 115 12
Value for Percentages 2192 154
Against NPRM (note 2) 606 [29.18%] 46 [29.87%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1153 [55.51%] 75 [48.70%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 318 [15.31%] 33 [21.43%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 6 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2210 240
Indeterminate (note 1) 127 15
Value for Percentages 2083 222
Against NPRM (note 2) 623 [29.91%] 70 [31.53%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1143 [54.87%] 109 [49.10%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 317 [15.22%] 43 [19.37%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 7 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2221 251
Indeterminate (note 1) 129 20
Value for Percentages 2092 231
Against NPRM (note 2) 626 [29.92%] 73 [31.60%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1148 [54.88%] 114 [49.35%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 318 [15.20%] 44 [19.05%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 8 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2233 263
Indeterminate (note 1) 131 22
Value for Percentages 2102 241
Against NPRM (note 2) 628 [29.88%] 75 [31.12%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1153 [54.85%] 119 [49.38%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 321 [15.27%] 47 [19.50%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 9 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2243 273
Indeterminate (note 1) 132 23
Value for Percentages 2111 250
Against NPRM (note 2) 633 [29.99%] 80 [32.00%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1155 [54.71%] 121 [48.40%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 323 [15.30%] 49 [19.60%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 9 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2246 276
Indeterminate (note 1) 132 23
Value for Percentages 2114 253
Against NPRM (note 2) 633 [29.94%] 80 [31.62%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1158 [54.78%] 124 [49.01%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 323 [15.28%] 49 [19.37%]
The FCC has not updated its ECFS for 12 Sep 05 as of 6 PM EDT on
12 Sep 05. This posting reflects three additional Comments added
by them, one on 6 Sep 05 and two on 31 Aug. All three are "For."
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 12 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2277 307
Indeterminate (note 1) 132 25
Value for Percentages 2143 282
Against NPRM (note 2) 640 [29.86%] 87 [30.85%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1176 [54.88%] 142 [50.35%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 327 [15.26%] 53 [18.79%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 13 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2288 318
Indeterminate (note 1) 134 25
Value for Percentages 2154 293
Against NPRM (note 2) 645 [29.94%] 92 [31.40%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1180 [54.78%] 146 [49.83%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 329 [15.27%] 55 [18.77%]
RST Engineering
comments, and what is an "FR Notice"? To be sure of being heard, can we
repost what we posted prior to the FR Notice?
Jim
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1126722400....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
an_old_friend
RST Engineering wrote:
> I'm just not "in the know". Why would or would not the FCC consider all
> comments, and what is an "FR Notice"? To be sure of being heard, can we
> repost what we posted prior to the FR Notice?
no one is truely in the know here. I would say you could resend just in
case You might mention that the dates issue to sure
Hopefully Len would move such a dub out of the sole previous to
publishing stats, and you might add more to flesh out your remarks
OTOH I believe the FCC will not realy discount any coment made before
formal publication
LenAn...@ieee.org
>I'm just not "in the know". Why would or would not the FCC consider all
>comments, and what is an "FR Notice"? To be sure of being heard, can we
>repost what we posted prior to the FR Notice?
"FR Notice" is Federal Register Notice. All announcements, news,
notices, laws enacted, etc., by any federal agency is printed in
there...every working day by the Government Printing Office (GPO).
If you look at the lower part of the Title of NPRM 05-143 you
will see that the "Comment period begins when printed in the
Federal Register" and then extends until N number of days after
that notice. 60 days for Comments and 75 days for Replies to
Comments.
The first filed comment on WT Docket 05-235 appeared on 20 July.
The NPRM itself was inserted by the FCC on 21 July but they
moved it to 15 July the next day. You can see the time-stamp
of the ECFS on the 15 July filing (which is larger in file
size than the direct-downloadable NPRM PDF file version because
it is a scanned paper image).
The Notice on NPRM 05-143 did not appear in the Federal Register
until 31 August. When it did, the Notice added the official
cutoff date of Comments as 31 October with cutoff of Replies to
Comments as 14 November. The period between 15 July and 31
August is roughly six weeks. So, for six weeks there's about
2000 Comments filed which were done BEFORE the Notice in the
Federal Register.
You are free to post anything you want in the ECFS. If the FCC
doesn't like it for any reason, then they probably won't let it
be on the ECFS. About half of the "Indeterminates" are so
categorized because they go into some kind of argument/diatribe
NOT directly attributable to the NPRM; the NPRM is ONLY about
the elimination or retention of the code test.
Some individuals have posted MORE than once such as surname
Garcell with over 14 "For" Comments and surname Sparks with
over 5 "Against" Comments. I don't know what the FCC will do
with those. I put duplicates in the "Indeterminate" category
because all I'm doing is getting some insight on the opinions
of all those who Comment.
So far, in the first two months of Comment, the number of
filings exceed all of those posted on WT Docket 98-143 on
Restructuring (roughly 10 months total from release of that
NPRM and official - extended twice - cutoff date of
15 Jan 99). If elimination goes through as an R&O it will be
of greater impact on the immediate future of United States
amateur radio than did R&O 99-412 on restructuring.
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 15 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2319 348
Indeterminate (note 1) 137 28
Value for Percentages 2182 320
Against NPRM (note 2) 653 [29.93%] 99 [30.94%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1193 [54.67%] 159 [49.69%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 336 [15.40%] 62 [19.38%]
RST Engineering
template, would you please put the FCC URL to this comment site?
Jim
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 16 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2321 350
Indeterminate (note 1) 138 29
Value for Percentages 2183 321
Against NPRM (note 2) 653 [29.91%] 99 [30.84%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1194 [54.70%] 160 [49.84%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 336 [15.39%] 62 [19.31%]
The ECFS did not list any filings for 16 Sep 05 as of Noon EDT on
17 Sep 05. The above includes two added filings for 15 Sep 05.
LenAn...@ieee.org
That gets you to the fill-form at the FCC for finding filings on
dockets and for specific dates. You have only to put in
"05-235" without the quotes in the upper left block and the
dates (in the stated format) in the "from-to" blocks.
You can also get there from the FCC home page through
the general search block and follow the links to reach the same
page. There's been over 2300 filings so far since 15 July 2005;
happy reading! :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
("restructuring") with 05-235 by just entering "98-143" (without
quote marks) in the upper left block. Leaving all the date
blocks blank will return ALL filings on a given proceding. At
the bottom of the Results display you can select numeric
groups (100 per display at these numeric totals).
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 19 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2357 386
Indeterminate (note 1) 141 32
Value for Percentages 2216 350
Against NPRM (note 2) 670 [30.23%] 116 [32.77%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1209 [54.56%] 175 [49.44%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 337 [15.21%] 63 [17.80%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 20 Sep 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2367 396
Indeterminate (note 1) 144 35
Value for Percentages 2223 361
Against NPRM (note 2) 672 [30.23%] 118 [32.69%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1213 [54.57%] 179 [49.58%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 338 [15.20%] 64 [17.73%]
RST Engineering
submitter's name? I'd like to find mine and copy it directly into a new
comment to make sure I'm on the record.
Jim
KØHB
"RST Engineering" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote
> Does anybody know how to search the FCC database for this NPRM by submitter's
> name?
1) Send your browser to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
2) In block 1 identify the proceeding ( 05-235 )
3) In block 4 enter "Jim Weir"
4) Click "Retrieve Document List"
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Homepage:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
Member:
ARRL http://www.arrl.org
SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc
VWOA http://www.vwoa.org
A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/
TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org
MWA http://www.w0aa.org
TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org
FISTS http://www.fists.org
LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm
NCI http://www.nocode.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"RST Engineering" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote
>
>> Does anybody know how to search the FCC database for this NPRM by submitter's
>> name?
>
>1) Send your browser to http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi
>
>2) In block 1 identify the proceeding ( 05-235 )
>
>3) In block 4 enter "Jim Weir"
>
>4) Click "Retrieve Document List"
Right on! [leave the date blocks blank]
Search can also be done by surname only. [try Garcell for
someone who got too anxious...repeatedly...or Sparks]
RST Engineering
happen.
Jim
"KØHB" <grou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dI3Ye.1068$zQ3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 10 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2530 557
Indeterminate (note 1) 158 48
Value for Percentages 2372 509
Against NPRM (note 2) 710 [29.93%] 155 [30.45%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1301 [54.85%] 267 [52.46%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 361 [15.22%] 87 [17.09%]
Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1129058481....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
:
: As of 10 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
: Elimination/Retention tabulation:
:
: ALL to Date Since FR Notice
: -------------- ---------------
: Grand Total 2530 557
:
: Indeterminate (note 1) 158 48
:
: Value for Percentages 2372 509
:
: Against NPRM (note 2) 710 [29.93%] 155 [30.45%]
: For NPRM (note 3) 1301 [54.85%] 267 [52.46%]
: Test Extra Only (note 4) 361 [15.22%] 87 [17.09%]
Quiteclose voting 55% against with retention any Morse test, 45% for
retention of some level of Morse test.
BGO
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
an old friend
Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:
> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:1129058481....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
> :
> : As of 10 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
> : Elimination/Retention tabulation:
> :
> : ALL to Date Since FR Notice
> : -------------- ---------------
> : Grand Total 2530 557
> :
> : Indeterminate (note 1) 158 48
> :
> : Value for Percentages 2372 509
> :
> : Against NPRM (note 2) 710 [29.93%] 155 [30.45%]
> : For NPRM (note 3) 1301 [54.85%] 267 [52.46%]
> : Test Extra Only (note 4) 361 [15.22%] 87 [17.09%]
>
> Quiteclose voting 55% against with retention any Morse test, 45% for
> retention of some level of Morse test.
but close only counts with horseshoes hand granades and nukes
what will realy count is the total lack of valid any reason to keep
code testing or the fialure of the Procoder to advance any new argument
(even at this late date I beleive that the proCoders coming up with
something NEW valid or not would stop the porcess for months)
given that I suspect the FCC will do as it is poised to do, end code
testing
Bill Sohl
news:1129064045.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:
> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:1129058481....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> : Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
> :
> : As of 10 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
> : Elimination/Retention tabulation:
> :
> : ALL to Date Since FR Notice
> : -------------- ---------------
> : Grand Total 2530 557
> :
> : Indeterminate (note 1) 158 48
> :
> : Value for Percentages 2372 509
> :
> : Against NPRM (note 2) 710 [29.93%] 155 [30.45%]
> : For NPRM (note 3) 1301 [54.85%] 267 [52.46%]
> : Test Extra Only (note 4) 361 [15.22%] 87 [17.09%]
>
>> Quiteclose voting 55% against with retention any Morse test, 45% for
>> retention of some level of Morse test.
>
>but close only counts with horseshoes hand granades and nukes
>what will really count is the total lack of any valid reason to keep
>code testing or the failure of the Procoders to advance any new argument
>(even at this late date I believe that the proCoders coming up with
>something NEW...valid or not would stop the process for months)
>given that I suspect the FCC will do as it is poised to do, end code
>testing.
That pretty much sums things up quite well...especially since
a number of nations have already abondoned all code testing
with no ill effects after two years.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
an old friend
Bill Sohl wrote:
> "an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1129064045.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >but close only counts with horseshoes hand granades and nukes
> >what will really count is the total lack of any valid reason to keep
> >code testing or the failure of the Procoders to advance any new argument
> >(even at this late date I believe that the proCoders coming up with
> >something NEW...valid or not would stop the process for months)
> >given that I suspect the FCC will do as it is poised to do, end code
> >testing.
>
> That pretty much sums things up quite well...especially since
> a number of nations have already abondoned all code testing
> with no ill effects after two years.
not to put you on the spott but i'll try to put you on the spot
do you agree with my statement that a for a truly new arguement that
the FCC would wait and study awhile?
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
Bill Sohl
IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify
keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper
or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree,
no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by
anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina, etc)
no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced
that points to any need for code knowledge.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 11 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2545 572
Indeterminate (note 1) 158 48
Value for Percentages 2387 524
Against NPRM (note 2) 719 [30.12%] 164 [31.30%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1305 [54.67%] 271 [51.72%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 363 [15.21%] 89 [16.98%]
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> "an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> do you agree with my statement that a for a truly new arguement that
>> the FCC would wait and study awhile?
>
>IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify
>keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper
>or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree,
>no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by
>anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina, etc)
>no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced
>that points to any need for code knowledge.
I personally doubt that the FCC will do any more than review
the 2600 Comments expected to be received by the end of the
Comment period at the end of October (as of the 11th of October
the count of Comments was 2545 total). Right now there are
more Comments than the more than half-year period of WT Docket
98-143 on Restructuring. That ended in mid-January 1999 and
the final Report and Order (99-412) was released in December
1999. Since WT Docket 05-235 is less complex than 98-143, I
doubt the review-and-decision period would be greater than a
half year on NPRM 05-143.
If there is any concession to the outraged ham morsemen, I would
predict that the Commission MIGHT keep the 5 WPM code test for
Amateur Extra class. I say MIGHT only in speculation. The
Commission is already on record of 15 years ago that it doesn't
think that radiotelegraphy skill is anything worthy for their
purpose in granting amateur radio licenses. However, the
Commission has conceded to the desires of the special interest
groups (such as the ARRL) in the past, so the final R&O will
say much about the influence of the ARRL on the Commission now.
If the Commission won't yield to morse testing for Extras, then
I'd say that the ARRL just doesn't have the clout it once had.
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.
Iitoi
Bill Sohl Wrote:
>
> IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify
> keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper
> or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree,
> no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by
> anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina,
> etc)
> no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced
> that points to any need for code knowledge.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill K2UNK
FCC has seemed anxious for "concensus", so the apparent almost half who
want some continued test may seem to risk that 5wpm test for Extra would
remain as other countries have done for their top classes.
--
Iitoi
N2...@aol.com
> 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?
Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen some
of them here. Like you claims about the legality of hams operating with
expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses, where you clearly didn't
understand what Part 97 actually says.
Is there a detailed breakdown of each commenter's response, such as was
done by KC8EPO back in 1999? A listing of duplicates removed and other
anomalies, with the criteria for each? Or do you expect us to just take
your word for the accuracy of the scorecard?
I suppose someone could go through all the comments and come up with
their own scorecard. But what good would it do if that scorecard
differed from yours? We all know how you'd react here.
Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're hardly
unbiased on the subject of code testing.
Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on
morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as
if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've
previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their
data did not match yours, too.
So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm
not saying you're intentionally cooking the books, but given your long
and varied track record here and elsewhere of mistakes,
misinterpretations of dissenting opinions and extremely negative,
attacking, denigrating responses to those who support either Morse Code
or Morse Code testing, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine *you* in the
role of unbiased reporter of those comments.
Besides, FCC doesn't have to go by majority opinion anyway. Back in
1999, the majority of commenters did *not* want the elimination of all
but 5 wpm code testing, but FCC did it anyway. (See WK3C's post of
KC8EPO's tabulation here. The majority of those commenting wanted at
least two code test speeds).
Bill Sohl
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1129153363.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> LenAn...@ieee.org 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. 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.
(SNIP)
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Leo
...or opine on how inaccurate it *may* be, without investing the time
and effort to substantiate your theory....... :)
>
>(SNIP)
>
>Cheers,
>Bill K2UNK
73, Leo
LenAn...@ieee.org
><bills...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>><N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org 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. 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.
>
>...or opine on how inaccurate it *may* be, without investing the time
>and effort to substantiate your theory....... :)
There should be NO problem on ascertaining the accuracy of
anything where the entire contents are OUT IN THE OPEN for
ALL TO SEE. All that is left is to tally up the opinions
into the four categories I used...of all 2545 Comments filed
as of 11 October 2005, beginning with "comment" #1 on 15 July.
It's "easy." Just read every single Comment filed. :-)
"For accuracy" Jimmie MUST decide on what to do with the
duplicates (only two major offenders there, one FOR, one
Against the NPRM), what to do with the half dozen who are
Commenting on a totally different subject (not even amateur
radio), and generally try to decode what some of them are
trying to say (not always easy).
Those FOR, those Against the NPRM are fairly clear and un-
ambiguous. Should be an easy decision on just reading them.
For the "Extra Only" group it isn't that clear since those
generally add a lot of commentary that is NOT in the NPRM.
Larry Klose got a lot of static on his large, and more
complex analysis of WT Docket 98-143. That's still in the
ECFS database if anyone wants to look. I expected the same
on WT Docket 05-235 on NPRM 05-143.
Jimmie is getting draconian in his mistrust, dislike, and
general pissiness on those who won't agree with him that
morsemanship is the holy grail of amateurism. Screum.
JIMMIE CAN DO HIS OWN WORK on the stats if he is so shirty
about it...and SHOW IT. :-)
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're hardly
> unbiased on the subject of code testing.
Hi! And you show no bias? Hardy, hi, hi!
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 12 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2556 583
Indeterminate (note 1) 161 51
Value for Percentages 2395 532
Against NPRM (note 2) 721 [30.10%] 166 [31.20%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1309 [54.66%] 275 [51.69%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 365 [15.24%] 91 [17.11%]
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
That would require an effort on Jim's part.
N2...@aol.com
Bill Sohl wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1129153363.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >
> >> My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
> >> some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
> >> code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
> >> as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
> >> a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.
> >
> > That's nice, Len.
> >
> > But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?
>
> Because he sez it is.
Why should that be good enough, Bill?
Nobody is checking Len's work.
There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show
his.
He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
resistance to any corrections.
He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.
He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.
Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he
doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions?
> Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
> accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
> comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.
Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len.
Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is?
Or would his reaction be somewhat different?
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: Leo <nom...@noway.com> on Wed, Oct 12 2005 5:40 pm
>
>
> ><bills...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >><N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>> LenAnder...@ieee.org 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. 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.
> >
> >...or opine on how inaccurate it *may* be, without investing the time
> >and effort to substantiate your theory....... :)
>
> There should be NO problem on ascertaining the accuracy of
> anything where the entire contents are OUT IN THE OPEN for
> ALL TO SEE. All that is left is to tally up the opinions
> into the four categories I used...of all 2545 Comments filed
> as of 11 October 2005, beginning with "comment" #1 on 15 July.
> It's "easy." Just read every single Comment filed. :-)
Have you done that, Len? How would any of us know if you had or hadn't?
>
> "For accuracy" Jimmie
Who do you refer to as "Jimmie", Len?
If you mean me, why not just call me "Jim"?
Is there some reason you can't do that?
> MUST decide on what to do with the
> duplicates (only two major offenders there, one FOR, one
> Against the NPRM), what to do with the half dozen who are
> Commenting on a totally different subject (not even amateur
> radio), and generally try to decode what some of them are
> trying to say (not always easy).
KC8EPO gave us a detailed breakdown of each comment. He got at
least of them wrong, though - mine.
Are you immune from mistakes, Len?
> Those FOR, those Against the NPRM are fairly clear and un-
> ambiguous. Should be an easy decision on just reading them.
> For the "Extra Only" group it isn't that clear since those
> generally add a lot of commentary that is NOT in the NPRM.
Does anyone else check your work on this, Len? Or do you expect that
everyone should consider you infallible?
> Larry Klose got a lot of static on his large, and more
> complex analysis of WT Docket 98-143.
>From whom?
Show us some examples of the "static", Len.
Some links to usenet posts or websites where his work
was not objectively criticized would be a good start.
I don't think you can do that.
You're making the claim - you show us where he got "static".
> That's still in the
> ECFS database if anyone wants to look. I expected the same
> on WT Docket 05-235 on NPRM 05-143.
Show us the alleged "static", Len.
> Jimmie is getting draconian in his mistrust, dislike, and
> general pissiness on those who won't agree with him that
> morsemanship is the holy grail of amateurism.
To whom do you refer, Len?
> Screum.
???
> JIMMIE CAN DO HIS OWN WORK on the stats if he is so shirty
> about it...and SHOW IT. :-)
Why should anyone else "show their work" when you won't show yours,
Len?
Besides, it's not about me. I'm not making any claims about what the
comments do or do not recommend. You are.
Seems to me that someone who is confident in their analysis of the
comments would be glad to have it checked by others. Instead, Len
attacks the messenger/questioner, as it were. Guilty conscience? Lack
of confidence? Faked results? Just plain mistakes?
Your behavior in response to my questions fits your profile perfectly,
Len.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
As of 13 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:
ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2558 585
Indeterminate (note 1) 161 51
Value for Percentages 2397 532
Against NPRM (note 2) 721 [30.08%] 166 [31.09%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1311 [54.69%] 275 [51.87%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 365 [15.23%] 91 [17.04%]
Iitoi
N2...@AOL.COM Wrote:
>
>
> But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?
>
> Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen
> some
> of them here.
>
> hardly
> unbiased on the subject of code testing.
>
> Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on
> morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as
> if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've
> previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their
> data did not match yours, too.
>
> So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm
No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too
slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting
the possibility.
If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score
would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last
tabulation)?
Grow up.
The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ
--
Iitoi
N2...@aol.com
> N2...@AOL.COM Wrote:
> > But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?
> > Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen
> > some of them here.
> >
> > Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're
> > hardly unbiased on the subject of code testing.
> >
> > Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on
> > morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as
> > if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've
> > previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their
> > data did not match yours, too.
> >
> > So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm
> > not saying you're intentionally cooking the books.....
>
> No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too
> slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting
> the possibility.
Is "spotlighting the possibility" of something not allowed?
Besides, "cooking the books" implies an intent to deceive. There's
also the possibility of honest mistakes.
There doesn't seem to be anybody checking Len's 'work', anyway.
> If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score
> would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last
> tabulation)?
Maybe. That's not the point, anyway.
> Grow up.
What does that mean in this context? That I should accept Len's
scorecard without question, just because he says so?
Leo
>From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>
>>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
73, Leo
N2...@aol.com
> From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>
> >Bill Sohl wrote:
> >> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
Is anyone doing that, Len?
> Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be
> objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing.
I'll take that as admission that you are not objective on the subject.
> However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which
> are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test
> issue.
Is anyone checking your numbers, Len?
>
> >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.
You sure seem obsessed by it, though.
> 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.
We all know that, Len.
> Nobody is stopping anyone from posting.
Has anyone tried to stop you from posting here, Len? Has anyone told
you to "shut the hell up"?
Gee, Len, you've just shown once again how predictable your behavior
here really is.
Bill Sohl
news:1129306808.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Sohl wrote:
>> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:1129153363.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > LenAn...@ieee.org 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.
I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
do your own analysis.
In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.
> There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
> detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
> like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
> doesn't show his.
Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
of keeping morse.
> He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
> resistance to any corrections.
Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO)
you don't want to do the work.
> He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
> evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.
Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or
reply comments to the FCC.
> He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.
Nor are you or I :-) :-)
Why don't you pay for an independent audit.
> Yet everyone should accept what he says as
> fact even though he doesn't accept what others
> say if it contradicts his opinions?
Then don't accept his numbers...do your own.
>> 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.
It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above,
even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by
5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total
code testing removal.
> Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as
> accurate because I say it is?
Unless you do your own tally, it's only
conjecture.
> Or would his reaction be somewhat different?
Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to
consider.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
N2...@aol.com
> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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
N2...@aol.com
Bill Sohl wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1129306808.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bill Sohl wrote:
> >> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >> news:1129153363.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > LenAn...@ieee.org 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.
>
> I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
> do your own analysis.
I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another.
Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me.
> In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
> tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
> vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.
So nobody is really checking his scorecard.
>
> > There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
> > detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
> > like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
> > doesn't show his.
>
> Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
> error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
> of keeping morse.
Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.
> > He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
> > resistance to any corrections.
>
> Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO)
> you don't want to do the work.
Would there be any point to it?
Suppose I "did the work" and found that Len had made significant
mistakes. What do you think the reaction would be?
I've "done the work" on Len's mistakes before, and the reaction
wasn't very nice. Why should I bother to clean up after him again?
> > He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
> > evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.
>
> Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or
> reply comments to the FCC.
You miss the point, Bill.
> > He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.
>
> Nor are you or I :-) :-)
Neither of us is as biased as Len.
> Why don't you pay for an independent audit.
Would it make any difference?
>
> > Yet everyone should accept what he says as
> > fact even though he doesn't accept what others
> > say if it contradicts his opinions?
>
> Then don't accept his numbers...do your own.
Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really
think the majority opinion matters now?
>
> >> 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.
>
> It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above,
> even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by
> 5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total
> code testing removal.
Not exactly.
>
> > Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as
> > accurate because I say it is?
>
> Unless you do your own tally, it's only
> conjecture.
>
> > Or would his reaction be somewhat different?
>
> Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to
> consider.
I think you know what his reaction would be, but you don't want to say
so here, because you know how he'd react.
Mike Deignan was right.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill Sohl
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1129327352....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
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
Bill Sohl
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1129327973.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Sohl wrote:
>> I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
>> do your own analysis.
>
> I'm not making any claims about the
> comment totals one way or another.
> Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me.
In the end, what you or I think about Len's numbers
makes no difference. Let's assume Len files his final
statistics with the FCC, you can then challenge them
all you want.
>> In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
>> tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
>> vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.
>
> So nobody is really checking his scorecard.
No problem in my book.
>> > There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
>> > detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
>> > like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
>> > doesn't show his.
>>
>> Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
>> error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
>> of keeping morse.
>
> Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
> majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.
WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%,
the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a
52% majority in favor of the NPRM.
(SNIP of repeated "what if's)
> Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the
> issue in 1999 - do you really
> think the majority opinion matters now?
Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the
nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change.
(Snip again)
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>>>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
Too much trouble for one of the "elite," Leo. :-)
>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......
No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-)
Miccolis of Morse was sorely wounded in the past verbal volleys
and has never fully healed. His pain (or pane) must be severe
to go to such great lengths of character assassination in order
to assuage that pain. :-)
<shrug> Just another spiteful person in this din of inequity.
Just the same, James Miccolis has NOT submitted any Comment
under WT Docket 05-235 nor has he posted any of his own
statistics on NPRM 05-143 Commentary. All he wants to do is
sit in here and make nasty to anyone who has. Pity that.
The United States "amateur community" is speaking out on the
code test. What they say doesn't sound good to those who
became self-styled apostles of the Church of St. Hiram in
their youth. Less and less of the litany of morse-is-the-best
or the morsemen being the elite of hamdom. The morsemen want
desperately to Rule and they can't realize that their "rule"
is ending in a revolution of thought unfettered by the demands
of long-ago, mostly-expired "professional amateurs" in the USA.
The morsemen will grow increasingly bitter towards their end.
This will only get worse and possibly remain that way for
decades. Never mind that amateur radio is basically a hobby.
To the amateur morsemen it is much MORE to them and their
entire self-perception-of-worth is tied up in morsemanship...
and their certificates (suitable for framing) achieved long
ago.
=============================
Back in 1958 the FCC issued an R&O creating the Class C and
D Citizens Band Radio Service in the USA. Old-timer hams of
back then were outraged and bitter that ordinary citizens
could invade their (sacred) 11 meter band...without taking
a single test of any kind! Horrors! The end of the (amateur)
world to hear some of them talk at that time. I know, I had
to work with some Amateur Extras and had to hear all their
bitching and moaning and carrying-on. :-)
Once the code test is gone in the USA amateur regulations the
same bitching and moaning and carrying-on will repeat itself.
That is also predictable. Pity that.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>> >Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
>
>Is anyone doing that, Len?
Yes, but YOU are NOT. :-)
>> Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be
>> objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing.
>
>I'll take that as admission that you are not objective on the subject.
Tsk. You are going to "take" it any which way you can in
order to do your attempted character assassination. :-)
>> However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which
>> are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test
>> issue.
>
>Is anyone checking your numbers, Len?
Yes.
Who checks YOUR numbers on all those bimonthly USA ham license
numbers you post? :-)
>> >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.
>
>You sure seem obsessed by it, though.
Methodical, not "obsessed." Not near as "obsessed" as YOU
are in attempting character assassination of anyone speaking
out against your opinions in here... :-)
>> 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.
>
>We all know that, Len.
But you refuse to do it. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
>> Nobody is stopping anyone from posting.
>
>Has anyone tried to stop you from posting here, Len? Has anyone told
>you to "shut the hell up"?
Yes they have. :-)
>> >> 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." :-)
[morsemen are definitely NOT unbiased on the code test...]
>> >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!
[afraid of getting a rebuking Reply to Comments? :-) ]
>> 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. :-)
>
>Gee, Len, you've just shown once again how predictable your behavior
>here really is.
Is THAT all you can come up with? Tsk, tsk.
United States amateur radio history is happening NOW. We are all
(well, most) in the NOW, not living in some idealized past.
Am I "predictable" on living NOW and being a part of history?
If so, I admit it. That is REALITY. That is LIFE. I like it.
All those Comments and Replies to Comments will be on file with
the FCC in their Reading Room long after a final R&O on the NPRM
is issued. It isn't ephemeral like some Google archive. All
Comments will be there and on public view at the FCC. Official
stuff. It's not some fantasy playground where you can play at
lording it over others in a newsgroup. It's "put up or shut up"
time, Jimmie. One or the other.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> >that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again......
>
> No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-)
Careful, now. YOU are not permitted to profile on RRAP. YOU hold no
amateur radio license. YOUR knowledge of such things is imperfect and
suspect.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
> detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
> like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show
> his.
How can he show his work when he doesn't do any?
StatHaldol
date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance.
Dee Flint
"StatHaldol" <realt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129373167.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
> date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance.
>
Don't believe so. They can take as long as they want to.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Leo
>Leo wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>
>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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
LenAn...@ieee.org
To borrow from Flip Wilson, "da devil made me do it!" :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>Leo wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> 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?
whinysli...@yahoo.com
" So where is you point?" - Commander makes good sentence!
Leo
>From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>
>>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>Leo wrote:
>>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
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
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Loved that guy. Never got into the Monty Python stuff so often quoted
here.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>>>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>>Leo wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>>>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
an_old_friend
StatHaldol wrote:
> Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
> date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance.
not by a certain date.
however if they dilly daily too long NCI will organize a campaign to
put pressure on them, the FCC seems to have caved even to the threat of
such presure in bring out the the NPRM when they did
an_old_friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Iitoi wrote:
> > N2...@AOL.COM Wrote:
>
> > > But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?
>
> > > Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen
> > > some of them here.
> > >
> > > Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're
> > > hardly unbiased on the subject of code testing.
> > >
> > > Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on
> > > morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as
> > > if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've
> > > previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their
> > > data did not match yours, too.
> > >
> > > So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm
> > > not saying you're intentionally cooking the books.....
> >
> > No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too
> > slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting
> > the possibility.
>
> Is "spotlighting the possibility" of something not allowed?
it certainly is
>
> Besides, "cooking the books" implies an intent to deceive. There's
> also the possibility of honest mistakes.
>
> There doesn't seem to be anybody checking Len's 'work', anyway.
then go for it
no one else is conceed enough
>
> > If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score
> > would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last
> > tabulation)?
>
> Maybe. That's not the point, anyway.
sure is
>
> > Grow up.
>
> What does that mean in this context? That I should accept Len's
> scorecard without question, just because he says so?
that you should do the work yourself or shut up about it
John Kasupski
> 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.
For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code
testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation
that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on.
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. It was along about the same time that computers
first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of
technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham
radio and its code testing. 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).
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. 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.
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. As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones,
and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on
the space shuttles, and the computers in today's homes are capable of
real-time communication between almost any two points in the world
without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other
such inconveniences.
So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? We're nothing more
to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call
CW which is good for a laugh but little else.
Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come
full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and
IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
> 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.
Someone much wiser than myself (I forget who) once wrote that one
always retains one last bit of foolishness from childhood, that to
retain all of them is to be immature, but that to surrender all of
them is an even worse alternative.
From that standpoint, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to
maintain the status quo - for themselves. The error in judgement is in
trying to force the same status quo on the rest of the world.
> 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]
It has been noted previously that CB-like behavior is engaged in by
some hams who have passed a code test, while at the same time there
are plenty of hams who have never passed a code test who do not behave
like some of the neanderthas who inhabit 11 meters, not to mention the
MURS, marine VHF, FRS, and other license-free or licensed-by-rule
radio services. Thus, the successful demonstration of telegraphy
skills is not a character reference, as FCC has pointed out in almost
exactly those words.
What I haven't seen discussed is the effect of economics. One can buy
a brand new CB rig for $50 or less these days. Stick a $20 mag-mount
antenna on something metal and you have a CB station of modest
capabilities for under $100. No code, no written test, and if you
happen to be a major asshole it's not a problem either. Ham rigs cost
a heck of a lot more, the cost of even used HF rigs is several times
what a CB rig costs. I think that is more likely to keep the CB cave
dwellers off the ham bands a lot longer than any code test would.
Note that not all CB operators fit the above comments, and however
unfortunately, not all hams fail to fit the above comments.
> 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.
Not really, the USA simply chose to obey it. The USA has similarly
chosen unilaterally not to obey other international agreements,
including one related to the use of land mines and another related to
greenhouse gases and the so-called "global warming" effect.
Say what you want about the lack of code testing, but at least
code-free ham radio doesn't blow people's legs off or threaten to melt
the polar caps and turn W1AW into an IOTA station.
> 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.
It should also be noted that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the
ARRL, which appears determined to go down with the ship at least.
> 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."
On this point...okay, granted that ARRL does not go with the desires
of the majority of US hams, but why should they? As you point out, the
majority of US hams are not ARRL members. If the League seems to be
carrying out the wishes of its members, this should not be any great
surprise - that's what the hams who pay dues to belong to the ARRL
*expect* them to do.
If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their
fault. It's the 4 out of 5 hams who do not pony up their dues, and
then start telling their division directors to tow the line if they
expect to be re-elected.
> 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.
It's about 30 years too late for that anyway. The gunshot wound to ham
radio's figurative foot was self-inflicted in the mid-1970's when they
turned their backs on no-code licensing then. Now we see the results
every few weeks courtesy of N2EY's postings.
The ARRL pays lip service in its electronic publications, but does
little of substance to foster any serious upturn in the number of
licensed hams beyond its participation in volunteer examining. By that
I mean, while real change is what's needed, the League continues to
oppose that change. Again, though, that seems to be the wishes of its
members, or at least a majority thereof - so again it goes back to the
4 out of 5 hams who aren't League members.
> Few manufacturers need the amateur
> radio market so it won't be them to any great extent.
The manufacturers can do little to encourage folks to become licensed.
They could advertise in places where non-hams would be exposed to
their products. Kenwood could advertise the TS-850 in Newsweek. People
could get interested. Then they find out that in order to actually use
the damn thing, you not only have to pass the two written tests, but
you have to spend who knows how long learning Morse Code so you can
communicate with the same people in the same places they just finished
chatting with over the Internet, without having to spend a thousand
bucks on the radio, and the idea goes out along with the magazine
before next week's issue even arrives.
Besides, the manufacturers are in business, their business is to sell
radios, they're going to advertise to their potential customers, so
their advertising dollars are going to be spent in a manner consistent
with that.
> <snip>
Ditto.
> 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.
I can think of some other drawbacks too, but obviously the point still
stands. VoIP has even found its way into the ARS.
> The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is
> that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure."
In fact, increasingly it is neither.
Rigs aren't getting any cheaper. In an effort to one-up the
competition, the radio manufacturers keep adding more bells and
whistles to their products, and thus adding more dollars to the price
tag. A station consisting of just an entry-level HF transceiver and a
wire antenna, tuner, and power supply will still set one back about a
thousand bucks.
As for being independent from infrastructure, while a ham station can
be temporarily operated on emergency power, eventually, batteries need
recharging. Generators need refueling. Alternative power sources such
as solar power, or maybe a windmill, can be used, but how many average
hams happen to own a windmill? And have you checked out the price tags
attached to solar panels lately? And of course, adding capabilities
that utilize a computer (packet, SSTV, PSK-31, etc.) increases power
consumption considerably.
> 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.
Nevertheless, I still hear MARS ops running morale patches for
servicemen and women. Admittedly, though, I don't hear much of it on
the ham bands anymore.
> "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.
Agreed.
> 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. :-)
Code testing, perhaps. But, all testing? I can't agree with you there.
There are certain technical requirements relative to an amateur
station which require some basic knowledge on the part of the operator
in order to maintain the station within those requirements. To the
extent that the RF spectrum is a natural resource, the stewardship of
significant portions of that resource in the hands of hams deserves
some indication that an operator has the knowledge to safely operate a
station in accordance with those requirements.
Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around
with the innards. Operators of public safety stations (police, fire,
EMS, etc.), marine VHF radios, GMRS, CB, etc. may not. They have a
factory rep, or a repair shop, do it for them. So do many hams, but
for them it's a matter of choise, for those other guys it's the law.
>>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. :-)
Exactly. The reaction the original post was referring to is basically,
"Yawn!" which is the same reaction that will result from any attempt
to show how cool ham radio is by demonstrating that we can do
something over the radio that the kid has already done hundreds of
times using his cell phone, or a PC over the internet. The code test
isn't even a factor. You're showing the kid nothing he hasn't already
seen, and done, before.
> 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.
There was a big deal made recently over the fact that in a contest
between a couple of very experienced CW operators and a couple of
cell-phone text messaging experts, the CW guys won handily. The
text-messaging folks were quite surprised. The hams looked at it as a
victory of sorts. Which it was. Except it's not going to make kids
trade in their cell phones (which fit in a shirt pocket, run for hours
on a tiny lithium ion battery, is paid for by his parents, requires no
license or testing, and allows him to call anybody anywhere) for a ham
station (which he has to pay for out of his allowance, requires a
license and a testing process, only allows him to call other licensed
hams, and can hardly be used while walking down the middle of the
local mall checking out the cute ass on the bunch of girls walking ten
yards ahead of him!).
>>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.
You check out the effect miniaturization has had on ham equipment,
though, and you see that the state of the art has evolved since half a
century ago. Compare my Kenwood TH-78A or Yaesu FT-100 of today to
what passed for a "portable" radio in 1955.
> 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]
To a large extent, I agree. It does occur to me, though, that few
hobbies provide the opportunity to do public service work and
contribute to community efforts in disaster preparedness and such.
> 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.
Well, right...but then, NASA, the USAF, and the USN don't generally
employ these folks as volunteer assistants, either...and it's not
because they sniff too much glue, either.
> 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.
I agree on the above. However - If you admit that federal regulation
is needed, why decry "all testing" as you did earlier in your post,
when you stated:
> 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. :-)
What other method is there, other than testing, for insuring that
those individuals responsible for mitigating potential interference
from their own stations are knowledgeable enough to do so?
73 de John, KC2HMZ
kb9...@yahoo.com
<bill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1129098408....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill Sohl wrote:
cut
>> do you agree with my statement that a for a truly new arguement that
>> the FCC would wait and study awhile?
>
>IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify
>keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper
>or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree,
>no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by
>anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina, etc)
>no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced
>that points to any need for code knowledge.
I agree no new reason has been presented, w may disagree in that i
think if someone just came up with something truely NEW they would
delay and study it
but I don't expect even that
>
>Cheers,
>Bill K2UNK
>
>
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Michael Coslo
You look at it as an either or situation. Computers are not Amateur
radio, and amateur radio is not computers.
Now of course, there is intermixing of the hobbies, but for anyone to
think that every, or even many computer hobbiests are lost to ham radio
because of some competitive factor are really barking up the wrong tree.
> Now, 25 years later, hams lament the declining number of licensees as
> posted by N2EY every other week.
So.... the drop off is mostly Technicians who took no code test. They
are gone, and it is the code tests fault?
> 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.
One might suspect maybe they aren't all that interested in radio.
> As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones,
> and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on
> the space shuttles,
So I guess they won't want to be astronauts either!!
> and the computers in today's homes are capable of
> real-time communication between almost any two points in the world
> without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other
> such inconveniences.
1. My telephone has been doing that ever since I knew what a telephone was.
2. If you think that Ham radio is just about talking to people around
the world, that shows a part of the problem.
> So, why should they have any interest in ham radio?
Perhaps they are interested in Radio. If not, they might want to get a
different hobby....
> We're nothing more
> to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call
> CW which is good for a laugh but little else.
>
We have a lot of young hams in our area.
> Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come
> full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and
> IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
All of the Internet based "Ham Radio" transmission methods would work
much much better if the radio were out of the picture.
Do you really think that Echolink and IRLP is "state of the art"?
But if you want to believe that Ham Radio is dying, and it is
inescapable because of the actions of Hams from 25 or more years ago,
then there isn't much to do about it except enjoy what is left, or turn
in your ticket as a symbolic protest of our ancestors stupidity...
- Mike KB3EIA -
Michael Coslo
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:53 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
> <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"an old friend" <kb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1129098408....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Bill Sohl wrote:
>
> cut
>
>>>do you agree with my statement that a for a truly new arguement that
>>>the FCC would wait and study awhile?
>>
>>IF (big IF) some new compelling reason was identified to justify
>>keeping code testing, then yes, I think the FCC might look deeper
>>or perhaps rethink their proposal...BUT, as we both appear to agree,
>>no such new and compelling reason(s) have been offered up by
>>anyone. Even after several major widespread emergencies (Katrina, etc)
>>no additional arguments or even anecdotal evidence has surfaced
>>that points to any need for code knowledge.
>
>
> I agree no new reason has been presented, w may disagree in that i
> think if someone just came up with something truely NEW they would
> delay and study it
>
> but I don't expect even that
It's all over except for the gloating. We'll see what happens after that.
- Mike KB3EIA -
LenAn...@ieee.org
On 16 Oct 2005 15:43:37 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> 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.
>
>For whatever reasons those who have opposed the elimination of code
>testing over the years have done so, I personally feel the observation
>that this was/is the root of the problem is spot on.
We agree...and so do thousands and thousands of others. :-)
>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. It was along about the same time that computers
>first became reasonably affordable for home use. A generation of
>technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative to ham
>radio and its code testing. 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 1975 there was only ARPANET tying in dozens of locations
containing mainframes (and a very few minicomputers)...the
BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems) were being experimented with on
a very small scale and the Internet would not be opened to the
public until 16 years later in 1991. Radio amateurs had
"access" to the FCC only through the United States Post Office.
In 1975 the ARRL had a legal firm in DC on retainer and acted
as the "representative" of U.S. radio amateurs. This
"representation" was little more than a minor dictatorship
of self-proclaimed "representatives" enjoying control over all
those individual radio amateurs who did not want to or could
not (probably due to time or intimidation of going up against
government officials) directly access the federal government.
ARRL "representation" amounted to the ARRL telling the feds
and amateur radio members that a no-code "communicator class"
license was no good for them. With so little input from
individual radio amateurs, the FCC believed the ARRL was the
"representative" and acceded to the ARRL's wishes.
>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. 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 1975-1980 period was also a high point in the explosion
of new integrated circuits, newer transistors, and an opening
up of new areas of electronics hobby activity that had little
or no relation to amateur radio. The communications
satellites were beginning to be used for worldwide
communication and there were breakthroughs aplenty in many
areas of electronics. Technically-inclined folks now had
the first of the microcomputer SYSTEMS that they could afford
and control. It was a terrific time of newness in a different
kind of communications, that of direct person-to-person
contact. Bulletin Board Systems took off worldwide, grew and
prospered and practical futurists were planning the Internet.
>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.
30 years ago (again in the 1975 time frame), most of my
contemporaries in electronics engineering did NOT get into
that field through amateur radio. It was just fascinating
enough to them to get into and they did. This was the time
of very serious advancements in the state of all electronics.
While the computer industry began exploding in size and
capability, so did a lot of other areas in electronics and
with them came the people with interests in all of that.
The old paradigms of the 1930s (not to mention the mindsets
of the ultra-conservatives of "radio") did not apply to
the brave new world that came 40 years after.
>As for young people today, they grow up with cell phones,
>and game machines that have more processor power than the computers on
>the space shuttles, and the computers in today's homes are capable of
>real-time communication between almost any two points in the world
>without regard to propagation or licensing procedures or any other
>such inconveniences.
I got access to the RCA corporate computer network in 1973
after being able to use an HP 9100 programmable desk
calculator for some formidable problem solving. Those old
mainframes of 30 years ago PALE in comparison to the speed
and memory and peripheral power of today's desktops and
laptops! Clock rate of those mainframes was maximum at
around 20 MHz 30 years ago but today it is 3 GHz with a RAM
access rate of 200 MHz! Today I can hold a 250 GByte hard
disk with two fingers yet would need two people to help me
hold the "cake platter" containers for 500 MBytes worth of
mass-memory storage of the 1970s.
>So, why should they have any interest in ham radio? We're nothing more
>to them than a collection of fossils playing with a curiosity we call
>CW which is good for a laugh but little else.
That's a bit severe, John. Having "one's own radio station"
is FUN, a personal enjoyment, an interesting hobby. So is
model railroading, Civil War reenactoring, and stamp
collecting...just as the new hobby areas of robotics and
general electronic gadgetry are FUN for the participants.
A problem occurs when those interested in on-off keying CW
HF radio take themselves too seriously, saying they are
some kind of "ultimate" radio skill individuals and such
radiotelegraphic skills are "needed by the nation." They've
been stuck in their long-ago brainwashed period of mental
conditioning that they can't really see beyond their own
immediate interests...or egos. Those that want to do
competitive contesting have personal enjoyment of that niche
area (even though it is NOT the "sport" of physical
athletics). However, some of them have glorified that niche
activity of the hobby into being some kind of all-around
"champions" of a hobby interest and that isn't descriptive
of the hobby in general.
>Interesting, then, that the state of the art in ham radio has now come
>full circle with the advent of Voice-Over-IP systems like EchoLink and
>IRLP. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The Purists in ham radio (those still in Belief of the
standards and practices of the 1930s) will decry such
new-fangled notions as "not being 'real' amateur radio."
Just as radiotelegraphy skill is a "must" for all hams,
a bit of pure mental conditioning done long ago.
>Someone much wiser than myself (I forget who) once wrote that one
>always retains one last bit of foolishness from childhood, that to
>retain all of them is to be immature, but that to surrender all of
>them is an even worse alternative.
Perhaps. :-) ENJOYMENT on a personal level is not some kind
of "sin." At any age. Such is NOT immaturity...but a few
folks take their seriousness far too seriously and demand that
all "work hard (and long)" to be "successful" in achieving OLD
goals.
>Fromthat standpoint, there is nothing wrong with people wanting to
>maintain the status quo - for themselves. The error in judgement is in
>trying to force the same status quo on the rest of the world.
Agreement 100%! Problem that I see is those individuals have
so identified with their OWN goals and the imprinted "standards"
of others telling them what to do, that they see themselves
ranging from "role models" to absolute judges of what all MUST
do. What they don't realize is that those old standards and
practices did NOT suddenly arrive on the amateur radio scene
from a divine source...they EVOLVED during the beginning of
radio. Yet, inexplicably, those standards and practices "must"
be retained WITHOUT any benefit for FURTHER evolving! :-)
>It has been noted previously that CB-like behavior is engaged in by
>some hams who have passed a code test, while at the same time there
>are plenty of hams who have never passed a code test who do not behave
>like some of the neanderthas who inhabit 11 meters, not to mention the
>MURS, marine VHF, FRS, and other license-free or licensed-by-rule
>radio services. Thus, the successful demonstration of telegraphy
>skills is not a character reference, as FCC has pointed out in almost
>exactly those words.
I question that the "CB behavior" is "bad" in any form. :-)
It is only against the OLD HAM STANDARDS of strict,
absolute maintenance of approved old-style procedure and
protocol of AMATEURS. What these purists don't (or can't)
understand is that ham procedure and protocol would be
laughed at by some other radio services. The professionals
in radiotelegraphy already bestowed the "ham" pejorative on
amateurs long ago; some old-timer hams enjoy playing the
part of using "professional conduct" yet don't realize how
they got their moniker. :-)
It's difficult to be emotional at 10 words per minute CW. :-)
>> 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.
>
>Not really, the USA simply chose to obey it. The USA has similarly
>chosen unilaterally not to obey other international agreements,
>including one related to the use of land mines and another related to
>greenhouse gases and the so-called "global warming" effect.
Political views on OTHER things aside, the USA has so
MANY international communications activities going that
it would be international political disaster to ignore
agreement with ITU-R radio regulations. They MUST agree
in order to keep the EM environment open; disregarding
it would upset all common communications with others.
Don't forget that a chaotic, unregulated EM environment
would impact US just as much as the USA could impact
others by no following regulatory agreements.
>> 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.
>
>It should also be noted that the lone dissenting vote was cast by the
>ARRL, which appears determined to go down with the ship at least.
Many think that the ARRL can do no wrong. They get very
disturbed if Big Brother is described negatively. :-)
>On this point...okay, granted that ARRL does not go with the desires
>of the majority of US hams, but why should they? As you point out, the
>majority of US hams are not ARRL members. If the League seems to be
>carrying out the wishes of its members, this should not be any great
>surprise - that's what the hams who pay dues to belong to the ARRL
>*expect* them to do.
The ARRL ought to quit playing at it being a "representative
body" for radio amateurs. Its officials seem to get a kick
out of controling the membership. Control is power. But,
they are "official" and say so. :-)
>If the ARRL does not represent the majority of hams, it's not their
>fault.
It is ABSOLUTELY their fault.
>It's the 4 out of 5 hams who do not pony up their dues, and
>then start telling their division directors to tow the line if they
>expect to be re-elected.
Disagree. There is NO federal regulation that says U.S.
radio amateurs MUST belong to some organization. Ergo,
they don't have to "pony up any dues."
Who says those "division directors" have to "tow any line?"
They are NOT governed by any federal laws regarding
"representation," have NO checks-and-balances inherent to
the federal or state governments. A private membership
organization is NOT some branch or agency of the federal
government...even though the ARRL loves to play at that.
>> 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.
>
>It's about 30 years too late for that anyway. The gunshot wound to ham
>radio's figurative foot was self-inflicted in the mid-1970's when they
>turned their backs on no-code licensing then. Now we see the results
>every few weeks courtesy of N2EY's postings.
James Miccolis' postings just repeat what another private
organization does in tabulating publicly-available federal
government databases. [no one "checks his work"...:-) ]
Ah, but the ARRL decreed to all [USA] radio amateurs on
what they "should' think back 30 years ago. Ergo, they ARE
responsible for not attracting more members than they have.
>The ARRL pays lip service in its electronic publications, but does
>little of substance to foster any serious upturn in the number of
>licensed hams beyond its participation in volunteer examining. By that
>I mean, while real change is what's needed, the League continues to
>oppose that change. Again, though, that seems to be the wishes of its
>members, or at least a majority thereof - so again it goes back to the
>4 out of 5 hams who aren't League members.
You are ignoring all those (who can't be counted) who are NOT
YET licensed. The ARRL is trying its damndest to CONTROL what
newcomers are required to do to get their license. The ARRL
just doesn't have that sort of "right." Finally, with the
opening of the Internet and all USA government agencies getting
on the 'net, the federal government isn't buying into a lot of
what the ARRL says or demands.
>The manufacturers can do little to encourage folks to become licensed.
>They could advertise in places where non-hams would be exposed to
>their products. Kenwood could advertise the TS-850 in Newsweek. People
>could get interested.
Disagree strongly based on a century of marketing practices
in the world. Manufacturers CAN do MUCH to "get folks
interested" in just about anything. Advertising is BIG
BUSINESS and an essential part of marketing practices.
> Then they find out that in order to actually use
>the damn thing, you not only have to pass the two written tests, but
>you have to spend who knows how long learning Morse Code so you can
>communicate with the same people in the same places they just finished
>chatting with over the Internet, without having to spend a thousand
>bucks on the radio, and the idea goes out along with the magazine
>before next week's issue even arrives.
Tsk, the morsemen elitists state that the USA already has
a no-code-test license class for amateur radio. "Not a
problem" for newbies they imply. :-)
>> 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.
>
>I can think of some other drawbacks too, but obviously the point still
>stands. VoIP has even found its way into the ARS.
Ah, but the elitist morsemen keep on claiming that morse is
the epitome of radio skills and infinetly superior to just
"grabbing a mike and yakking." :-)
>> The usual radio amateur argument for amateur radio is
>> that it is "low cost" and "independent from infrastructure."
>
>In fact, increasingly it is neither.
>
>Rigs aren't getting any cheaper. In an effort to one-up the
>competition, the radio manufacturers keep adding more bells and
>whistles to their products, and thus adding more dollars to the price
>tag. A station consisting of just an entry-level HF transceiver and a
>wire antenna, tuner, and power supply will still set one back about a
>thousand bucks.
Ah, but one in here has shown us a single digital photo of
an amateur radio HF transceiver that cost only "$100!" He
built it himself. Who can argue against him? :-)
>> 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. :-)
>
>Code testing, perhaps. But, all testing? I can't agree with you there.
Code testing WITH all the other subject matter testing.
That's what the "companionship" means.
The standard morsemen argument is that "if code testing is
dropped, it is the 'same' as dropping all testing." Not so,
but they keep on with that rationale.
>Only hams may legally yank the covers off their rigs and fiddle around
>with the innards.
That's only because of the way the LAW is written NOW. That
could be gone in a flash with a single R&O.
>Operators of public safety stations (police, fire,
>EMS, etc.), marine VHF radios, GMRS, CB, etc. may not. They have a
>factory rep, or a repair shop, do it for them.
Not entirely true since a Commercial license allows them
(legally) to do so. In broadcasting (now referred to as
"mass media") it's possible to "mess with innards" a lot
without a single legal license.
>>>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. :-)
>
>Exactly. The reaction the original post was referring to is basically,
>"Yawn!" which is the same reaction that will result from any attempt
>to show how cool ham radio is by demonstrating that we can do
>something over the radio that the kid has already done hundreds of
>times using his cell phone, or a PC over the internet. The code test
>isn't even a factor. You're showing the kid nothing he hasn't already
>seen, and done, before.
Ah, but I've been told otherwise. Why, even in here, some
elitist morsemen have regaled us with stories of Field Day
and the "interest" generated by those skilled morsemen in
communicating by morse code! :-)
>There was a big deal made recently over the fact that in a contest
>between a couple of very experienced CW operators and a couple of
>cell-phone text messaging experts, the CW guys won handily. The
>text-messaging folks were quite surprised. The hams looked at it as a
>victory of sorts. Which it was.
It was? Maybe I should watch Jay Leno more often and "learn
about radio communications?" :-)
I'm still waiting for the "showdown" between "expert" morsemen
and some ancient 60 WPM teleprinters run by "non-expert"
teleprinter operators. Say, over a continuous 24-hour period.
As it was a half century ago. Offhand, I'd say that the
teleprinters would win out now as they did back then. :-)
>Except it's not going to make kids
>trade in their cell phones (which fit in a shirt pocket, run for hours
>on a tiny lithium ion battery, is paid for by his parents, requires no
>license or testing, and allows him to call anybody anywhere) for a ham
>station (which he has to pay for out of his allowance, requires a
>license and a testing process, only allows him to call other licensed
>hams, and can hardly be used while walking down the middle of the
>local mall checking out the cute ass on the bunch of girls walking ten
>yards ahead of him!).
It's not? Awwww.... :-)
>> 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]
>
>To a large extent, I agree. It does occur to me, though, that few
>hobbies provide the opportunity to do public service work and
>contribute to community efforts in disaster preparedness and such.
Well, getting an amateur radio license opens one up to some
really FINE areas of self-proclamation of "being of service"
and even "saving lives!" Great for wish-fulfillment. However,
I still seriously doubt that most radio amateurs got their
ham license to "be of service to their country." :-)
>> 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.
>
>Well, right...but then, NASA, the USAF, and the USN don't generally
>employ these folks as volunteer assistants, either...and it's not
>because they sniff too much glue, either.
Sorry, but one doesn't "employ" "volunteers." :-)
If you've followed the developments of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles) you would have seen that they evolved from model
radio controlled aircraft. Such model builders and their
companies contracted with the DoD on prototype UAVs.
"Glue sniffing" was not a standard practice a half century
ago and NOT a social problem. Today, the model hobby
industry doesn't use the same acetate and nitrate base
glues near as much, preferring to go with epoxies and the
cyanacrylic ("crazy glue") varieties.
>> 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.
>
>I agree on the above. However - If you admit that federal regulation
>is needed, why decry "all testing" as you did earlier in your post,
>when you stated:
>
>> 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. :-)
As I said earlier, John, I did not "decry 'all testing'" but was
using the elitist morsemen's so-called connection (the "companion-
ship") of code testing WITH all other testing...and their saying
that "dropping the code test is 'the same' as dropping all
testing."
>What other method is there, other than testing, for insuring that
>those individuals responsible for mitigating potential interference
>from their own stations are knowledgeable enough to do so?
More "mind control?" :-) Peer pressure? :-)
"Make more laws?" That's always a simplistic argument by those
who won't have to take any tests...just like the elitist morse-
man can keep on demanding that newcomers take those code tests.
One can make the amateur radio regulations (Part 97, Title 47
C.F.R.) far more draconian than they are. Currently, Part 97 is
one of the smaller Parts in Title 47 C.F.R. In one way, the
recent versions (prior to the 2000 Restructuring) WAS more
draconian with six license classes (there could be 60 or even
600 of those), three kinds of code test rates, all sorts of
sub-divided bands, and absolute retention of everything ever
transmitted using new modes such as Spread Spectrum. Is that
the kind of thing you meant?
Now there are only three classes, one code test rate, and the
VEC QPC gets to decide on ALL questions and answers (no more
sub-divided subject numbers) of any written test. There still
are the minutely-detailed "bandplans" plus the "new" 60m
"channels" on HF (good going, ARRL, "big boost" for the HFers).
As it was in 1934, so it is in 2005...the FCC is NOT any sort
of academic institution. It doesn't "teach" anything in the
way of all amateurs being responsible for mitigation or even
proper operation. Who and what teaches radio amateurs to BE
responsible is up to others. FCC regulations are expected to
be obeyed. [apparently they expect that six-year-olds can
always obey and be responsible to adult laws] Licensing is
only ONE tool of radio regulation. It was never a "diploma"
of accomplishment and it is never a 100-percent guarantee of
legal operation by anyone...although some fervently believe
that. :-)
"Testing" for a license grant is just part of the FCC's
regulatory toolbox. It is largely a legal formality and
doesn't guarantee anything other than an applicant having
completed - and passed - a particular test. It doesn't
guarantee anything more than a hunting license guarantees
all hunting within season or that a driver's license
guarantees a drive will always obey traffic laws and never
hurt anyone with a motor vehicle. On the other hand, if
there were NO testing, then there would be NO licenses to
grant and no amateur would have a piece of official paper
(suitable for framing) that allowed them to feel more
important than others for having accomplished that. :-)
Feel free to extrapolate "what I 'meant'" from the last two
paragraphs. I'm sure someone will...and they will be wrong.
N2...@aol.com
>
> 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...
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.
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.
> 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.
>
> 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.
I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. You might want
to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a
TV set or monitor to use it.
> 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.
>
> 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.
Apples and oranges.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Michael Coslo
N2...@AOL.COM 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^)
The whole argument does this sort of thing. 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
>
>>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?
>>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.
>
>
> I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. 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.
>
>
>>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.
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
Another subset of the dropoff is Hams who were somewhat interested in
radio, but became bored. They dropped off too.
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.
- Mike KB3EIA -
N2...@aol.com
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
KØHB
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote
>
> I think you mean BASIC programming. And who uses BASIC today?
>
Good old MSBASIC has morphed into a slick RAD IDE called Visual Basic. It, and
others of that ilk like Borland Delphi (PASCAL in an object-oriented dress), are
very popular with computer hobbiests.
> Heck, most people with computers don't write software, they simply use
> applications written by others.
"Heck, most hams don't build radios, they simply use radios built by others."
>
> but in late 1962 the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and
> above.
>
No they didn't. Some privs (satelite stations, as at least one example) were
reserved for Amateur Extras into the 70's.
But other than some isolated privs like that, General, Conditional, Advanced,
and Extra all had very similar "full" privileges going back to the early 50's.
Disincentive licensing changed that in the late 60's.
Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB
LenAn...@ieee.org
>N...@AOL.COM 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.
1975 is also THIRTY YEARS AGO. :-)
>>>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 "computer" is an electronic apparatus that calculates according
to a predetermined sequence of operations stored in memory.
The first "low-cost computers" were exemplified by the
1969-debut of the Hewlett-Packard 9100 programmable desk
calculator. [not a single IC in that model, by the way]
Magnetic-card storage of programs (size of a credit card of
today). CRT display of alphanumeric register contents.
Very expensive by hobby standards (unaffordable by most) but
it set a pattern. The general format/design has been carried
through to the current HP 33S ($55 through HP mail-order)
handheld programmable scientific calculator.
>>>A generation of
>>>technically inclined young people suddenly had an alternative
>>>to ham radio and its code testing.
>
>> Sorry, that doesn't make sense.
Makes PERFECT SENSE to those involved, from buyers to sellers
and the growth of the personal computer industry. Made Bill
Gates the richest man in the USA... :-)
>> Those early small computers weren't much in the way of communication
>> devices. Look up what a 300 baud modem for a TRS-80 cost...
Not a problem to most, really. I started up a second time with
a new Apple ][+ in computer-modem communications in early
December, 1984, got on local BBSs and had a ball from then on.
Thirty years ago, 300 BPS was considered "fast" (in comparison
to the "standard" rate of 100 BPS). It took a few years of
modem development to reach 2400 BPS (decried as "impossible" on
voice-grade telephone lines by so-called "experts" in comms).
Took a few more years and some heavy research into Coding
and Information theory to hit the now-top-rate of 56 KBPS.
Meanwhile the Co$t of that developement had to be paid by
somebody and that somebody was the consumer, the buyer.
Thirty years ago, the offshore production of consumer electronics
was just starting to make an impact on the market for such things
and had not gotten into the small personal computer area. Much
of the hardware for that area was still built domestically then.
The reverse is true now.
> 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^)
Timex-Sinclair was a LATE-comer into the personal computer market.
The first established generation of personal computers were the
Intel 8080 MCPU systems running CP/M (the first popular DOS). The
Motorola 6800 MCPU and then the MOS Technology 6502 MCPU (as used
in the first kit Apple, the Apple I, then the Commodore C64 ready-
built) began to change that. The Apple ][ series had almost
seized the whole personal computer market of 1980 until IBM struck
in 1981 and then Apple screwed up on new series designs, beginning
with the Apple III. CP/M systems had gone down the tubes by then.
> The whole argument does this sort of thing. 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.
That's only from YOUR personal experience. Prior to 1991 and the
Internet going public-access, there was NO "net surfing"...no
Internet to surf. BBSs were well established and growing by 1990
with tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) actively
communicating on BBSs and BBS netwroks. Nearly everything in
TEXT form and imagery largely confined to still pictures and games
of rather crude (by today's standards) imagery/art. Games were a
very popular market item. Real computer afficionados were into
programming, by BASIC, by Assembler, by Pascal, the few with the
first hard disks using compilers for compiled-source programs.
>> 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.
Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-)
Having been in that area as a hobbyist and once a suscriber to
Audio Engineering magazine in the 1950s, "hi-fi" was about the
ONLY area (other than ham radio) for hobbyists of the 50s.
The industry development of good, affordable ICs was only just
beginning with the one-package microprocessor about to change
that radically.
> 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.
If you re-write "radio type" into "electronic type" you would get
a different picture of the three decades from 1975 to now.
> 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.
"Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has
been steadily shrinking for two years. Not much of a shrinkage
but nowhere close to keeping up with the population increase.
Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen, the no-code-test
Technician class license added about 200 thousand new licensees
to the U.S. amateur radio database since it began. Without them
there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and the
total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was
entered. Never mind the "lumping of no-coders with code-tested
techs" happening after Restructuring, the tabulations elsewhere
show that the 200K additions by NO-CODERS actually happened BEFORE
Restructuring.
>> 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 "youth" is rather long gone...but southern California is
still the doityourself/custom car place showing how it is done,
today. :-) A good (enough) car was a "scarf magnet" for
young male teeners deep into testosterone flow.
>>>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).
[a regretable time shift there...were NO Sinclair models in 1975]
>> 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.
Heath is still around. They make a nice wireless doorbell (we
have two transmitters and three receivers), ready-built. That's
about IT. :-)
> Anyone using Timex-Sinclairs for ham use?
I doubt it. CQ magazine used to feature all kinds of adaptations
of the Commodore C64 series.
>>>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.
>
>> I built ham stations for a less than $100 in those days. You might want
>> to see how little a $200 computer would actually do. And you needed a
>> TV set or monitor to use it.
In 1980 it should not have been a problem to obtain an old TV
set (even black and white) to use as a display (what you call a
"monitor"). :-) Without tearing it apart to make an 80m CW
rig rock-bound on 3.579545454 MHz, it could still pick up NTSC
TV 25 years ago (nobody had any serious plans for "digital TV"
back then).
> Seems to me that the biggest thing they could be used for is learning
>Basic programming. Okay.
That isn't valuable at all? Tsk, tsk. :-)
>>>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.
They didn't go into choo-choos. :-)
>>>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.
>
>> Apples and oranges.
"Apples and oranges?" Sounds like more sour whine from morsemen.
Agribusiness did not grow through morsemanship...:-)
> Who is lamenting anyhow? I wish those new old Hams would have stuck
>around, but beyond that, big deal.
Mostly those hams just let their ham licenses expire. How about
that? :-)
> 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.
??? Is "radio" only that region called "HF" in the EM spectrum?
There is "NO technical interest" in the frequencies above 30 MHz?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...
> 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.
That can't be! Cell phones are absolutely useless as comm devices
according to all the morsemen...the Jay Leno show "proved that"...
in every single emergency situation, cell phones are "useless." :-)
> Another subset of the dropoff is Hams who were somewhat interested in
>radio, but became bored. They dropped off too.
I'm getting a bit bored by all this blather myself... :-)
> 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.
Tsk, from the output in here, much more judgement has been passed
than has gas. [or, they are one and the same...]
As of 17 Oct 05, 48.57% of all individual U.S. amateur radio
licensees were Technicians...MOST of them not having taken any
code tests. Guess they don't count, huh? :-)
So far on WT Docket 05-235, the number of filings in only three
months averages 866 per month. On WT Docket 98-143 (Restructuring)
they averaged less than 205 per month over an 11-month period.
Guess the morse code test is "unimportant" and, since PCs are
"only used for surfing the net," it doesn't have any impact on
input to the FCC, right? :-)
Dave Heil
>> 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.
Same here. I got mine with the drive and a b/w 5" monitor for $25.
I wanted it for RTTY to replace an old mod 15 TTY machine.
> Needed
> a TV set to use it. No printer, no communications. The least expensive
> floppy drive for it cost almost $200 new...
I quickly upgraded to a C-64 with RGB monitor, extra memory and a
printer, all used.
>>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.
There are some bargains out there. I routinely see 1.2 or 1.4 gb
machines with monitors and keyboards for $100-175.
>
>>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?
Not really. If you are interested in becoming a ham, you find a way to
become a ham. Most hams I know are computer users as well. The two are
not mutually exclusive.
>
> 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.
Look at the things a ham might do with a computer. I use mine for
Packet Cluster DX spots, routine logging, contest logging, awards
tracking, propagation forcasting, RTTY/AMTOR/Pactor operation, satellite
tracking, antenna modeling, electronic calculations and more.
I think most kids are still interesting in adding chrome doodads,
lights, fancy tires and very hefty stereo sets which will shake a
quarter mile of asphalt.
>
>>>>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.
I had a 2036 but I had to keep a diddle stick handy for touching up the
VCO periodically. I later had the VF-7401, a bit better beast.
>
>>>>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 went from an XT DOS machine to a 286 with Geoworks to a 386 with
Windows 3.1 to a 486 with Win95 to a series of Pentiums with Win98 and
98SE/WinNT (dual boot) to my current "Winders XP (West Virginia variant)
machines.
>>>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
Sweet!
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg
I like the audio filtering...
> http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg
Izzat a bowl for the tuning dial?
>
> 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.
Do you still have it?
> 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.
Quite clever. I have a homebrew amp in an ARC-5 cabinet which ran four
6JB6's. A load of 17JB6's became available at a couple of bucks each a
few years back. I stocked up on them and changed the filament
transformer to an 18v job.
> 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.
I don't know why anyone but Leonard H. Anderson would scoff at the parts
or the methods.
>
>>>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.
Sure. Most folks want the computer to do something. They aren't
necessarily interested in computing for computing itself as a hobby.
>
>>>>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?
Didn't any of "the best" become teachers or ministers or heads of water
companies?
Are you sure about that 1962 date? General class licensees had all HF
frequencies when I first became interested in amateur radio in 1961.
> 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.
I had a solution for the expensive equipment problem: I never had new
equipment until the 1980's.
> 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!
Imagine that. Do you mean that folks just hit the books, brushed up on
their code speed and tested for the higher class licenses?
> 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.
...and I note that the NVEC is coming out with new question pools with
far fewer questions. I wonder why *that* is.
Dave K8MN
Iitoi
John Kasupski Wrote:
>
> 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
>
So their choice was "become a ham, or get a job"?
And there are no longer any "good paying jobs in the computer industry"
--- they all moved to Bangalore and Delhi and are now "not-so-good
paying jobs in the computer industry".
The Man in the Maze
QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ
--
Iitoi
N2...@aol.com
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Michael Coslo wrote:
> >>N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >>>John Kasupski wrote:
> There are some bargains out there. I routinely see 1.2 or 1.4 > gb machines with monitors and keyboards for $100-175.
That's driven mostly by "offshore" manufacturing, which used to mean
Mexico or Japan but now usually means China.
> >>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?
>
> Not really. If you are interested in becoming a ham,
> you find a way to
> become a ham. Most hams I know are computer users as well.
> The two are not mutually exclusive.
Exactly.
> > 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.
>
> Look at the things a ham might do with a computer.
> I use mine for
> Packet Cluster DX spots, routine logging, contest logging,
> awards
> tracking, propagation forcasting, RTTY/AMTOR/Pactor operation,
> satellite
> tracking, antenna modeling, electronic calculations and more.
Equipment and parts inventory, circuit simulation, drafting (the dial
scale of the Southgate Type 7 was drawn in CAD and printed on Mylar
with an inkjet printer). Also retrieval and storage of all kinds of
info (most of the HB-3 tube manual set is online, downloadable by
type).
Sure, but that's not the same thing as what I was talking about. Like
when I helped Dan Mullen pull the cracked head from his Nova, clean off
all the carbon and put on a rebuilt one. When we were both in high
school.
> >>>>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.
>
> I had a 2036 but I had to keep a diddle stick handy for
> touching up the
> VCO periodically.
Never had that problem.
> I later had the VF-7401, a bit better beast.
They were still selling HW-16s in 1977 IIRC.
> >>>>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 went from an XT DOS machine to a 286 with Geoworks to a 386
> with
> Windows 3.1 to a 486 with Win95 to a series of Pentiums with
> Win98 and
> 98SE/WinNT (dual boot) to my current "Winders XP (West Virginia > variant)
> machines.
After the Vic-20, I had a used XT. Replaced it with a new Dell Win95
200 MHz Pentium II in 1997. Since then, my computers have
all been built from pieces salvaged from older machines discarded by
their original owners.
> >>>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
>
> Sweet!
Remember that it was built more than 30 years ago by a teenager in his
basement...
> > http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX2.jpg
>
> I like the audio filtering...
The 88 mh toroids were one of the few items bought new. Not easily
found in old TVs...
>
> > http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX3.jpg
>
> Izzat a bowl for the tuning dial?
Yes. A plastic cereal bowl, to be exact. It's translucent, and the
pilot lights shine light through it.
> > http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX4.jpg
> > http://www.qsl.net/k5bcq/Jim/SilverRX6.jpg
The pictures are actually scans of old B&W photos.
> > Almost all the parts came from old TVs, radios, and surplus
> > military gear.
Swords into plowshares.
> > 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.
> Do you still have it?
Not in one piece.
I used it for several years, then loaned it to a ham who had even less
$$ than I. Meanwhile I built an improved model and lost track of it.
The ham I gave it to used it for several years, then stored it in an
attic without covering it up. The roof of that house was redone and all
sorts of roof debris got all over it.
Finally it was discovered and I got back the remains a few years ago.
Tore it apart for the good stuff.
> > 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.
>
> Quite clever.
Thanks
> I have a homebrew amp in an ARC-5 cabinet which > ran four
> 6JB6's. A load of 17JB6's became available at a couple of
> bucks each a
> few years back. I stocked up on them and changed the filament
> transformer to an 18v job.
Good idea. Another trick with old rigs is to replace 6146s with 6883s
or even 6159s, if you can find the higher-voltage tubes at low cost.
Some rigs, like the Heath transceivers, have 12 volt heater buses so
the change is easy.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't know why anyone but Leonard H. Anderson would scoff at > the parts or the methods.
> >>>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.
>
> Sure. Most folks want the computer to do something. They
> aren't
> necessarily interested in computing for computing itself as a
> hobby.
Means to an end vs. an end in itself. And that's a key factor.
> >>>>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?
>
> Didn't any of "the best" become teachers or ministers or heads > of water companies?
Sure, lots of examples. Including folks who went into the military,
government service, and other vocations like electrical engineering....
TYPO:
Should be "1952".
The announcement was made in December of 1952 and became effective in
February 1953.
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.
>
> Are you sure about that 1962 date?
See above. Typo.
> General class licensees had all HF
> frequencies when I first became interested in amateur radio in > 1961.
All frequencies and modes were authorized to all General, Conditional,
Advanced and Extra class hams by that Feb of 1953 change. Stayed that
way until November 22 1968.
> > 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.
>
> I had a solution for the expensive equipment problem: I never > had new
> equipment until the 1980's.
My HW-2036 and K2 are they *only* ham rigs I ever bought brand-new.
> > 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!
>
> Imagine that. Do you mean that folks just hit the books,
> brushed up on
> their code speed and tested for the higher class licenses?
Not just that - a lot of *new* hams got licenses after the
requirements were *increased*.
It was predicted in some circles that the incentive licensing
changes would cause massive reductions in the number of hams,
but the exact opposite happened.
> > 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.
>
> ...and I note that the NVEC is coming out with new question
> pools with
> far fewer questions. I wonder why *that* is.
Did you read their "Amateur Radio In The 21st Century" paper? Explains
it all.
They seem to miss the point that the kind of folks (particularly young
people) who would be most attracted to ham radio are those who want a
challenge.
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am
>
> >N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> John Kasupski wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-)
You are mistaken, Len.
The original articles by DTN Williamson appeared in the spring of 1947.
They outlined both the theory of an improved design and a practical
design that could be (and was) built by many audiofiles.
You can read the original 1947 articles online at:
Perhaps you meant the Ultra-Linear circuit, which came later.
> Having been in that area as a hobbyist and
> once a suscriber to
> Audio Engineering magazine in the 1950s, "hi-fi"
> was about the
> ONLY area (other than ham radio) for hobbyists of the 50s.
Really?
Radio control of models was being done by UHF cb as long ago as 1948.
"SWLing" was one reason so many general-coverage receivers were built.
Electronic music (as opposed to music reproduction) was on the scene
with theremins, electronic organs and electric guitars - which led to
synthesizers in the 1960s.
The electronic hobby magazines like Popular Electronics and Electronics
Illustrated in that era had no shortage of projects that were neither
amateur radio nor "hi-fi".
> >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.
>
> If you re-write "radio type" into
> "electronic type" you would get
> a different picture of the three decades from 1975 to now.
Why would anyone rewrite what Mike wrote?
>
> > 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.
>
> "Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has
> been steadily shrinking for two years.
That's recent, compared to the long period of growth that preceded it.
> Not much of a shrinkage
> but nowhere close to keeping up with the population increase.
Just like in the 1960s. Yet after the "incentive licensing" changes,
the growth picked up again. There were folks back then
who said amateur radio was dying out, and that the "incentive
licensing" changes would kill it....
> Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen,
"snarling denial"? You're the chief snarler hear, Len ;-)
> the no-code-test
> Technician class license added about 200 thousand
> new licensees
> to the U.S. amateur radio database since it began.
> Without them
> there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and > the
> total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was
> entered.
You seem to be saying that if it weren't for that license class, none
of those people would have become hams. Yet in the 1980s the number of
US hams increased by about 200,000 even though all US amateur radio
license classes required a code test.
> Never mind the "lumping of no-coders with code-tested
> techs" happening after Restructuring, the tabulations
> elsewhere
> show that the 200K additions by NO-CODERS actually happened > BEFORE Restructuring.
And now they're all mixed up.
>
> >>>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).
>
> [a regretable time shift there...were NO Sinclair models in 1975]
Tell it to John Kasupski.
> As of 17 Oct 05, 48.57% of all individual U.S. amateur radio
> licensees were Technicians...
How does that percentage compare with what it was in 2000 and 2003,
Len?
> MOST of them not having taken any
> code tests.
How many?
> Guess they don't count, huh? :-)
They're all counted in my twice-a-month postings of the number of
current unexpired individual licenses. The total number of Technicians
and Technician Pluses has dropped by about 15,000 since the 2000
restructuring - that's more than the entire 'shrinkage' of all the
other license classes combined. Given that the Novice and Advanced
classes are no longer issued, they are bound to shrink...
>
> So far on WT Docket 05-235, the number of filings in only three
> months averages 866 per month. On WT Docket 98-143 (Restructuring)
> they averaged less than 205 per month over an 11-month period.
So?
Back in the 1960s, the "incentive licensing" proposal generated more
than 6000 comments to FCC, even though the number of US hams was only
about 40% of what it is today, and practically all commentary was by US
mail.
> Guess the morse code test is "unimportant" and, since PCs are
> "only used for surfing the net," it doesn't have any
> impact on
> input to the FCC, right? :-)
Who said that? Not me.
And note that by your own unchecked-for-accuracy comment count, the
comments are almost evenly balanced between retention of at least some
code testing and total elimination.
N2...@aol.com
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>
> >On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >>Leo wrote:
> >>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
> >>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
> >>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >>If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a
> >>problem in the first place.
>
> Ahem...this is a "preconditioning" artificiality
> of "reasons."
> [akin to the "do you still beat your wife?" question]
Show us how that works, Len.
One of the reasons repeatedly given for the elimination of
the code test is that it is supposedly a "barrier" to "otherwise
qualified people" who would bring "fresh, new blood" and *growth* to
amateur radio.
Were all those people wrong?
> "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre
> for the elimination
> or retention of the code test.
Tell that to NCI...
> The lack of love and worship
> of morsemanship should be enough.
IOW, since *you* don't have a high regard for Morse Code
skills, there should be no test...
>
> >Another view would be that it was a problem that is being
> >fixed way too late to repair the damage.
Maybe. But I don't think so.
> >Amateur Radio was a very popular hobby back
> >when you and I were kids
I don't know when Leo was a kid, but I know that when I
got my ham license in 1967 at the age of 13, there were only about
a quarter-million US hams - less than 40% of today's total. The US
population back then was a lot more than 40% of what it is today.
-
> >today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things
> >competing with it.
Such as?
There was all sorts of competition when I was a kid, too.
>
> One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was
> the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
> any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form
> needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with
> radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the
> offshore products appeared about four years later and the
> trucking industry started buying them.
But what happened after that? You stopped the story at the most
important part, Len.
27 MHz cb was pretty well behaved at first. But by the mid 1960s
that service had big problems with rules violations. When the oil
embargoes of the early 1970s hit, cb became a major tool for truckers
and others to avoid law enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, weigh
stations, etc.
The use of radio to intentionally violate local, state or federal law
is clearly a violation of the Communications Act.
Other violations (unlicensed operation, "shooting skip", failure to
identify, use of power far above that authorized for the service)
became more the rule than the exception on 27 MHz cb. Indeed, some
began to use frequencies near but outside the authorized cb channels,
including the 10 meter amateur band.
Was cb still "excellent" in the 1970s, Len?
IMHO, one of the main reasons for that behavior was the lack of any
sort of license test for a cb permit.
That's nice, Len. But how well did the cell phone work away from the
major interstates?
>
> >I would think that the vast majority of the folks who are interested
> >in the things that Amateur Radio offers are already a part of the
> >hobby. Adding HF access might broaden the scope of those who did not
> >gain access to HF via morse testing (for whatever reasons) - but to
> >think for a moment that there are legions of wannabe hams who are
> >waiting exitedly for morse testing to be abolished so that they can
> >rush in and get on the air would be foolish.
> >
> >They aren't there.
>
> I think that is a valid observation.
> Had the "revolution" begun
> earlier here, such as prior to the no-code-test Technician
> class (USA) license of 1991, there might have been more
> growth.
Or maybe not. The growth of US amateur radio in the 1980s (without a
no-code-test license or medical waivers) was about the same if not
greater than the growth in the 1990s.
How do you explain that?
> In terms of CODED amateur radio licenses, those license
> numbers
> would have SHRUNK by now without that no-code-test Tech
> class.
How do you know? Would none of those people have gotten a license?
> For over two years there has been a continual reduction in
> the number USA amateur radio licenses.
> The majority of NEW
> licensees
> come in via the no-code-test Tech class but they can't
> overcome
> the EXPIRATIONS of already-granted licenses.
The reduction in the number of Technician and Technician Plus licenses
exceeds the total loss.
> It may not be too late to reverse but it will be a formidable
> task to increase the ham license numbers, impossible using
> old cliche'-ridden paradigms.
So what are your new paradigms, Len? Besides "dump the code test"?
Should amateur radio become like cb? No test at all? We've seen how
well that worked...
You've predicted a growth of 20% in a few years if the code test goes
away. Will you admit you were wrong if the code test goes away and
there isn't that much growth?
I doubt it.....
N2...@aol.com
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1129327973.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Bill Sohl wrote:
> >> Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
> >> error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
> >> of keeping morse.
> >
> > Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
> > majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.
>
> WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%,
> the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a
> 52% majority in favor of the NPRM.
I wrote:
"if 5% were miscategorized"
meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would
remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another.
Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest
column and the majority changes.
> (SNIP of repeated "what if's)
Why? Are any of them unreasonable?
>
> > Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the
> > issue in 1999 - do you really
> > think the majority opinion matters now?
>
> Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the
> nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change.
>
True, but note how narrow it is.
And note that the criteria used are quite vague in places. For example:
Do the totals include reply comments as well as comments?
If the same person submits multiple comments that are not identical, or
comments and reply comments, are they all counted, or does each
commenter get counted only once?
How is it determined if a person submits a "valid address"?
Why is the NPRM considered a comment?
Why are the comments of an Australian not counted? Is citizenship a
requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why?
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
> On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
> >>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >>>Leo wrote:
> >>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
> >>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
> >>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
It's exactly the case, Leo.
> > "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.
No, it isn't. Not in the USA, anyway.
The treaty changed more than 2 years ago, yet FCC did nothing at all
about it. 18 petitions/proposals were filed by various groups and
individuals. The NPRM is in response to those petitions/proposals and
their comments.
FCC could have simply dropped Element 1 in August of 2003. I was
surprised that they didn't, particularly after there were at least two
proposals to do just that.
If the treaty change drove the FCC, they'd have simply issued a
Memorandum Report and Order saying Element 1 was no longer a
requirement. But they didn't.
> The regulators
> create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to
> the amateur community to promote it and drive growth.
Growth in numbers is one of the reasons repeatedly cited by those
asking for an end to code testing.
> >>Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way
> >>too late to repair the damage.
How could it have been any different? The code test was a treaty
requirement that FCC would not violate. The testing was minimized in
1990 by the medical waiver petition, which effectively made all classes
available for a 5 wpm code test and a doctor's note. *Any* doctor could
write such a note, or sign one written by the ham asking for a waiver.
All it had to say was that it was harder-than-usual for the ham in
question to pass the code test.
> >>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.
When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when
I was a kid.
> 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.
So why should *anyone* get a ham license, test or no test?
> 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?)
Exactly. So it's not the code test or written test at all, but other
factors.
> >>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.
Yet that's what many anticodetest folks think and say.
> >>They aren't there.
Looks like an agreement!
>
> 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.
Fifty years ago there were maybe 150,000 US hams. Today there are over
650,000. Where did all that growth come from? Most of it happened in
the 70s and 80s, btw.
What many are concerned about is that the same problems that plague cb
will also plague amateur radio if the license requirements are reduced
too much.
> In the three years that I have held a
> license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in
> radio communications.
That's been true for a long time - most people aren't interested in
"radio for its own sake".
> Try this experiment - show a teenage kid an
> SSTV picture being received, and watch the reaction.....
Depends on how it's presented. Why would anyone be impressed by SSTV
after seeing the first pictures of astronauts on the moon's surface -
in 1969, 36 years ago?
> We hams are becoming a rare breed as technology advances.
Then what's the "new paradigm"? Eliminate all licensing? We've seen how
well that worked...
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Bill Sohl wrote:
> > <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> > news:1129327973.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I wrote:
>
> "if 5% were miscategorized"
>
> meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would
> remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another.
>
> Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest
> column and the majority changes.
>
Len has the right to calls the results as he sees em
I have no reason to believe he is corking the books.
I assume he is making some mistakes in the count (he is human after all
despite the claims of stevie blunder)
I wish you would stop whining and either take action yourself (go do
your own count) let the matter drop
lens count does not matter not even to the FCC
the FCC's count will matter more but let us assume that count came down
for code what would the result be. My thought is s light delay in the
issue of the R&O as folks looks through the comment a bit closer to see
if anything is there
Please stop abusing the poor dead equines. it is you right of course
but it unseemly
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am
>> >N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >> John Kasupski wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Change "1940s" for 'late 1950s' for that "Williamson." :-)
>
>You are mistaken, Len.
>
>The original articles by DTN Williamson appeared in the spring of 1947.
>They outlined both the theory of an improved design and a practical
>design that could be (and was) built by many audiofiles.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie, NOT "was built by many 'audiofiles." :-)
They hardly touched them, unlike myself who built one, then
two of the "ultra-linear" variety (for stereo). How many
did YOU build? [in 1947?]
>You can read the original 1947 articles online at:
Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie, I read the ORIGINAL article on Comm Sats
in Wireless World (by Arthur C. Clarke) in a 40s issue in the
RCA Technical Library. It took a LONNNNNG time to get the FIRST
geo-synchronous comm sat into orbit. :-)
Ever have your hands ON and even IN any bit of space flight
equipment, Jimmie? I have. From MARS Mariner '67 to the
Apollo Program Solar Wind Spectrometer (part of ALSEP) to name
just two. Ever watch any rocket engine being tested, Jimmie?
I have, from the Rocketdyne Santa Susannah Field Test Area
(Coca site). The Space Shuttle Main Engine combustion
chamber is only the size of a small beach ball yet it generates
350,000 pounds of thrust at full throttle-up.
Have you been to JPL, Jimmie? I have. JPL began in rocketry
during WW2. Took them a LONNNNNGGG time to go from JATO bottles
to the little "balloon-bounce" Mars rovers. They didn't get
there reading old magazines.
>Radio control of models was being done by UHF cb as long ago as 1948.
Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie...you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE entirely.
In 1948 I had my AMA 19700 and was competition flying and
deep into the model hobby activity. Not as you speak but you
are going to spend weeks on this subject in an effort to pull
your own MISTAKES out of the fire. In 1948 there were only
the Raytheon RK61 superregens IN model aircraft for R/C back
then. Built one of those, too, including making the rotary
"escapement" solenoid stepper from plans in Model Aviation
News (MAN is still published, by the way). Had to have one
of the local model club members run the transmitter (Joe, who
worked for the FAA at the Machesney Airport weather station).
Jimmie, try talking of an area you were IN. You didn't even
exist in 1948. :-)
>"SWLing" was one reason so many general-coverage receivers were built.
You build one in 1948? :-)
>Electronic music (as opposed to music reproduction) was on the scene
>with theremins, electronic organs and electric guitars - which led to
>synthesizers in the 1960s.
I built a Theremin in 1954 for a buddy in my Signal Battalion.
All vacuum tube. He was a musician in civilian life. It worked
but wasn't "comfortable" to listen to.
But, nowhere in heck did those weird Theremins "lead to music
synthesizers" LATER pioneered by Moog. Get your act together.
>The electronic hobby magazines like Popular Electronics and Electronics
>Illustrated in that era had no shortage of projects that were neither
>amateur radio nor "hi-fi".
INCORRECT, Jimmie. The two major newsstand magazines for
general electronics hobbyists in 1948 were RADIO CRAFT and
RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS. Radio Craft later changed its name
to Popular Electronics. So did RTN.
Tsk, in 1948 to 1955, YOU were NOT doing much of anything as
far as "electronics hobby projects." Could you hold a soldering
iron when you were first born? :-)
You are behaving like some 4-F civilian trying to tell a
military veteran "all about militry life and culture." :-)
>> "Recent" drop-off? :-) The number of U.S. licensed amateurs has
>> been steadily shrinking for two years.
>
>That's recent, compared to the long period of growth that preceded it.
"Recent?" :-) Oh, yes, I forget that you are oriented
back to the "beginnings" of radio. There were NO "radio
amateurs" licensed in 1895...anywhere in the world. The
last 110 years has seen an INFINITELY LARGE growth of
amateur radio to 2005, hasn't it? From ZERO to millions!
:-)
So, how was Reggie Fessenden's lab when you worked there as
lab assistant in 1900? :-)
>> Despite the snarling denial of amateur morsemen,
>
>"snarling denial"? You're the chief snarler hear, Len ;-)
Sweetums, I BEGAN in HF communications in 1953, wasn't no
morse code used in the ACAN 52 years ago, wasn't added
later. Wasn't a single morseman working at ADA back then,
still isn't out of Fort Shafter, Hawaii, for USARPAC using
the Army callsign ADA. :-)
>> Without them
>> there would have been NO peak of numbers in July, 2003, and > the
>> total numbers would have SHRUNK before the new millennium was
>> entered.
>
>You seem to be saying that if it weren't for that license class, none
>of those people would have become hams. Yet in the 1980s the number of
>US hams increased by about 200,000 even though all US amateur radio
>license classes required a code test.
Snarl, snarl, Jimmie Morseman, we "here" you. :-)
Quit trying to deny that no-code-test Technicians made a
sizeable difference in the total U.S. amateur radio license
numbers. They did. It is history. DENIAL gets you exactly
nowhere except all wet downriver in Egypt.
>They're all counted in my twice-a-month postings of the number of
>current unexpired individual licenses.
WHO CHECKS YOUR WORK ON THAT, Jimmie? :-)
Do you have your OWN FCC database download and sorting program
to derive those "statistics" or do you CRIB from other sources?
>And note that by your own unchecked-for-accuracy comment count, the
>comments are almost evenly balanced between retention of at least some
>code testing and total elimination.
Jimmie, you poor thing, still in denial.
You want to "check my work?" Go ahead. As of 19 October 2005
(1 PM EDT) there were only 2,612 filings on WT Docket 05-235.
30.18% were against the NPRM, 54.50% were FOR the NPRM. A 3:5
ratio is hardly "almost evenly balanced" on anything. :-)
All you have to do is connect to the FCC website, go to the ECFS,
start reading EVERY FILING on WT Docket 05-235 from 15 July 2005
until whatever date you wish to stop. Save ALL of those filings,
Jimmie, because I'm just so sure that you will want to ARGUE the
judgement on opinions in each and every one of them from now to
the end of time. :-) [it would make a whole new newsgroup
career for you!]
Meanwhile, you can continue to TELL US ALL about the electronics
hobby area, model aircraft flying, and all of that which
happened before you ever existed on this Earth. <yawn>
ex AMA 19700
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Leo wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>> >>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >>>Leo wrote:
>> >>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>> >>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org 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.
>
>It's exactly the case, Leo.
PROVE there is a "problem," Jimmie.
>> > "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.
>
>No, it isn't. Not in the USA, anyway.
The FCC could NOT issue such an NPRM (as 05-143) prior to July,
2003 because of the international agreement to abide by the
Radio Regulations of the ITU-R.
>The treaty changed more than 2 years ago, yet FCC did nothing at all
>about it.
The FCC did MUCH about it, allowing for those 18 Petitions for
change which you mention in:
> 18 petitions/proposals were filed by various groups and
>individuals. The NPRM is in response to those petitions/proposals and
>their comments.
A significant amount of effort in 2003 and 2004 was taken up
by the Comment period ON those same 18 Petitions. [that seems
to be lost by the no-change-ever morsemen]
>FCC could have simply dropped Element 1 in August of 2003. I was
>surprised that they didn't, particularly after there were at least two
>proposals to do just that.
Gotta love it...yet-another input from a self-appointed
"FCC Insider" telling us "what they could and could not do!"
>If the treaty change drove the FCC, they'd have simply issued a
>Memorandum Report and Order saying Element 1 was no longer a
>requirement. But they didn't.
Hello? Where is all the talk NOW about "getting a consensus?"
It was once a big driver in decision-making according to the
morsemen and the Believers of the Church of St. Hiram. :-)
WT Docket 05-235 pretty well shows there is NO HOPE for any
"consensus" on code testing in the USA.
>> The regulators
>> create the rules and regulations which control the hobby - it is up to
>> the amateur community to promote it and drive growth.
>
>Growth in numbers is one of the reasons repeatedly cited by those
>asking for an end to code testing.
By the PRO-code-test advocates, Jimmie, by the PCTA... :-)
Us NCTAs have been saying the code test is an OBSOLETE
REQUIREMENT for AMATEUR RADIO LICENSING. Oddly enough, the
FCC agrees with that! [ sunnuvagun! ]
>> >>Another view would be that it was a problem that is being fixed way
>> >>too late to repair the damage.
>
>How could it have been any different?
The Believers in code testing COULD have TRIED to compromise earlier
but they did NOT. :-)
>The code test was a treaty requirement that FCC would not violate.
Make up your mind. Earlier this post you said that the FCC
could have voided the code test on its own. Which is it?
>The testing was minimized in
>1990 by the medical waiver petition, which effectively made all classes
>available for a 5 wpm code test and a doctor's note. *Any* doctor could
>write such a note, or sign one written by the ham asking for a waiver.
>All it had to say was that it was harder-than-usual for the ham in
>question to pass the code test.
Tsk, tsk, the morsemen still believe that morsemanship is an
elemental base requirement for U.S. amateur radio...
>> >>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.
>
>When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when
>I was a kid.
Tell us all about the late 1940s in electronics hobby projects,
old timer... :-)
>> 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.
>
>So why should *anyone* get a ham license, test or no test?
To get Status, Rank, Title of Nobility, a pretty certificate
(suitable for framing), to show that they are "better" than
others? :-)
>> >>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.
>
>Yet that's what many anticodetest folks think and say.
...and they are "simply mistaken" according to you... :-)
>Fifty years ago there were maybe 150,000 US hams. Today there are over
>650,000. Where did all that growth come from? Most of it happened in
>the 70s and 80s, btw.
Where was Jimmie "fifty years ago?"
Interesting that Jimmie's claim of "most of the growth" occurring
when HE was first licensed. :-)
Jimmie tries his darndest to AVOID admitting that a large number
(over 200 thousand) no-code-test Technicians became licensed
after 1991. :-)
>What many are concerned about is that the same problems that plague cb
>will also plague amateur radio if the license requirements are reduced
>too much.
Many of those same folks say that "morse code testing will save
lives!" :-)
They also say that ending code testing is a "bad thing!"
Not to be outdone, some say it will be "the end of ham radio!" :-)
Of course, to understand that, one has to go in and READ the
2,612 filings on WT Docket 05-235 that have been filed by
midnight EDT 19 October 2005.
>> In the three years that I have held a
>> license, I have met very few people who were interested at all in
>> radio communications.
>
>That's been true for a long time - most people aren't interested in
>"radio for its own sake".
No? What is it then?
Title, Status, Privilege, "official recognition" of being better
than the average human for receiving a license?
>Then what's the "new paradigm"? Eliminate all licensing? We've seen how
>well that worked...
Oh, no, dragging out that FALSE equation again:
End of Code Testing = Ending ALL Testing
Typical PCTA ploy.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>> >On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >>Leo wrote:
>> >>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>> >>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>One of the reasons repeatedly given for the elimination of
>the code test is that it is supposedly a "barrier" to "otherwise
>qualified people" who would bring "fresh, new blood" and *growth* to
>amateur radio.
>
>Were all those people wrong?
Only to old morsemen who can't grow and have old tired blood...
>> "Growth in numbers" is not a raison d'etre
>> for the elimination
>> or retention of the code test.
>
>Tell that to NCI...
WHY? I'm not afraid of any dues increas at NCI... :-)
ARRL is very much concerned with growth and numbers. If the
ham numbers decrease, their publishing business will suffer.
>> The lack of love and worship
>> of morsemanship should be enough.
>
>IOW, since *you* don't have a high regard for Morse Code
>skills, there should be no test...
Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are jumping over tall conclusions thinking
you are getting somewhere. You aren't.
Having BEGUN in HF communications 52 years ago and NEVER having
needed any morse code skill then or in all the years since, I
just don't see why it remains an amateur radio licensing test.
No other radio service bothers with using morse code for
communications now, why should amateur radio still retain a
code test because of one national membership organization and
a bunch of old morsemen fearful of losing their exclusive
radio playground?
>I don't know when Leo was a kid, but I know that when I
>got my ham license in 1967 at the age of 13, there were only about
>a quarter-million US hams - less than 40% of today's total. The US
>population back then was a lot more than 40% of what it is today.
TODAY's laws are not governed by conditions of 38 years ago.
You remain in total denial that no-code-test Technician
licensees numbered as many as 200 thousand and that the
present-day U.S. amateur radio license totals would be
definitely smaller without them. Your problem, not mine.
>> >today, there are too many other far-more-glamorous things
>> >competing with it.
>
>Such as?
>
>There was all sorts of competition when I was a kid, too.
Not at the seminary for the order of the Church of St. Hiram.
One thing for sure, you didn't have any interest in a
military experience, did you?
>> One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was
>> the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
>> any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form
>> needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with
>> radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the
>> offshore products appeared about four years later and the
>> trucking industry started buying them.
>
>But what happened after that? You stopped the story at the most
>important part, Len.
Soon to be a major motion picture? :-)
>27 MHz cb was pretty well behaved at first. But by the mid 1960s
>that service had big problems with rules violations. When the oil
>embargoes of the early 1970s hit, cb became a major tool for truckers
>and others to avoid law enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, weigh
>stations, etc.
Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie...show us WHERE the truckers stay
UNDER their "legal speed limit" of 55 MPH. Having gone
cross country a few times since 1974 by motor vehicle (over
2000 miles one-way each time), the truckers do NOT obey
those "55 MPH limits." The presence or absence of a CB in
their cab has NOTHING to do with getting their cargo from
one place to its destination...so they can quickly pick up
another load and make another run...for PROFIT.
>The use of radio to intentionally violate local, state or federal law
>is clearly a violation of the Communications Act.
So...what have YOU done about this "violation of the law,"
Mr. Holier-than-Thou Morseman? Did you join the PA Highway
Patrol and get a spiffy uniform in which to catch all those
evil violators?
Did you join the FCC or the Federal Marshall's Service to
ENFORCE THE LAW?
I don't think you did. You LIKE to sit in here as a holier-
than-most everybody person and talk down to others.
>Other violations (unlicensed operation, "shooting skip", failure to
>identify, use of power far above that authorized for the service)
>became more the rule than the exception on 27 MHz cb. Indeed, some
>began to use frequencies near but outside the authorized cb channels,
>including the 10 meter amateur band.
Well? What did YOU do about it? CB on the old 11m band became
a reality in 1958, 47 years ago. If this so offends you, why
haven't you written a "sharp" report and submitted it to the
FCC? Or the ARRL? Or your elected Congresscritter?
>IMHO, one of the main reasons for that behavior was the lack of any
>sort of license test for a cb permit.
Oh, dear, I guess that shoots down about 100 million USA
citizens who use little two-way transceivers called "cell
phones!" No license, no TEST required for those!
How about those evil, NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED R/C transmitters
on their 72 MHz region channels? Aren't you worried about
UNLAWFULL ACTIVITY there, perhaps causing TVI while we still
have analog TV?
How about NO-LICENSE-REQUIRED FRS transceivers? [etc., etc...]
>That's nice, Len. But how well did the cell phone work away from the
>major interstates?
Very well, Jimmie. :-)
Had you been ON THE ROAD you would have seen lots and lots and
lots of cell site towers, some of them quite far away from the
Interstate highways. In Wyoming. In Nebraska. In Nevada. In
Utah. In many states.
>Or maybe not. The growth of US amateur radio in the 1980s (without a
>no-code-test license or medical waivers) was about the same if not
>greater than the growth in the 1990s.
>
>How do you explain that?
I "explain that" by pointing out you are still in denial that
all those no-code-test Technicians made a sizeable impact on
U.S. amateur radio license totals.
I "explain that" by pointing out you are wayyyy too deep into
love/honor/obeying old, old morsemen "rules" of yesterday by
trying to retain outmoded standards and practices in licensing.
I "explain that" by telling you and other staunch old-timer
morsemen that you will LOSE your self-perceived status as high-
rate code-tested "experts" in radio if the code test is gone.
>So what are your new paradigms, Len? Besides "dump the code test"?
To quote what another old-timer said, the amateur rules might
open up with: "Here's your rules, have a nice day." :-)
Problem really is, you old-timer morsemen fanatics just CAN'T
envision amateur radio WITHOUT any code test. It is the "heart
and soul of amateur radio!" according to a few Commenters on
WT Docket 05-235.
>Should amateur radio become like cb? No test at all? We've seen how
>well that worked...
Tsk, tsk, tsk...still using the "dropping the code test is the
end of all testing" ploy, aren't you? Dumb thing to do, Jimmie.
>You've predicted a growth of 20% in a few years if the code test goes
>away.
I "predicted it?!?" Did you get a GUARANTEE on the "prediction?"
I can't read the future, Jimmie. You apparently can, knowing all
of electronics hobby life before you ever existed. You are a
Radio god and "know all." :-)
>Will you admit you were wrong if the code test goes away and
>there isn't that much growth?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...still being the argumentative sore loser,
aintcha? :-)
Will YOU admit you are full of snit about the efficacy of morse
code in radio even when all the other radio services have given
up on it (if they ever used it from their beginning)? No, you
haven't yet and all those other radio service HAVE given up on
morse code for communications. It's predictable that you will
NEVER apologize for anything you've said..."everyone else makes
mistakes, but you never have." :-)
I don't care one way or the other what the growth of U.S. amateur
radio is AFTER the code test is eliminated. However, you think
that idle speculation is some kind of "official prediction" so
you want to make a Big Issue out of it. You already have. :-)
Why are you sitting around playing with your computer in the
middle of the day, being argumentative to others? Can't you
play with your "Southgate" thingy, working DX on HF with CW?
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> > Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >> Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
>> >> error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
>> >> of keeping morse.
>
>> > Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight
>> > majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing.
>
>> WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%,
>> the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a
>> 52% majority in favor of the NPRM.
>I wrote:
>
>"if 5% were miscategorized"
>
>meaning if 5% were in the wrong category. Fixing that problem would
>remove 5% from one category and add 5% to another.
>
>Remove 5% from the anticodetest column and add 5% to the procodetest
>column and the majority changes.
Whoa! Whose tabulation are you talking about, Jimmie?
My own voluntary tabulation doesn't have any "anticodetest" column
nor any "procodetest" column. You must be using someone else's
that aren't posted in this newsgroup...
>> (SNIP of repeated "what if's)
>
>Why? Are any of them unreasonable?
[ludicrously argumentative, they are... :-) ]
>> > Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the
>> > issue in 1999 - do you really
>> > think the majority opinion matters now?
>
>> Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the
>> nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change.
>
>True, but note how narrow it is.
Tsk, tsk...that shouldn't matter. The World According to
Jimmie had the Restructuring NPRM Comments "favoring higher
code test rates" than the across-the-board restriction to
5 WPM. THAT was a slim majority. PCTAs thought it "okay"
since it favored code testing. :-)
>And note that the criteria used are quite vague in places. For example:
>
>Do the totals include reply comments as well as comments?
They do, but the ONLY way to CHECK that is to READ THEM,
Jimmie. ALL of them. A mere 2600+ filings.
>If the same person submits multiple comments that are not identical, or
>comments and reply comments, are they all counted, or does each
>commenter get counted only once?
Yes, no, and maybe. :-)
The ONLY WAY to CHECK that is to READ THEM, Jimmie. ALL
of them. A mere 2600+ filings.
>How is it determined if a person submits a "valid address"?
If the ECFS Comment submission ACCEPTS it and it appears on
the record. Tsk, tsk, all "FCC Insiders" should KNOW that!
>Why is the NPRM considered a comment?
What should it be considered as? :-)
>Why are the comments of an Australian not counted?
NPRM 05-143 is about UNITED STATES radio regulations, Jimmie.
Is Australia part of the United States? No? Why not?
>Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that CHILDISH questioning, like a petulant
four-year-old kid bothering Mommy. :-)
Jimmie still has to CHECK it all out by READING ALL the filings
on WT Docket 05-235. He should. He just can't accept "un-
verfied" tabulations without his decreeing that everything comes
out as he wants it. :-)
kb9...@yahoo.com
>From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 20, 9:15 am show options
>
>
>>Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>> > Bill Sohl wrote:
cut
>>Why is the NPRM considered a comment?
>
> What should it be considered as? :-)
>
>>Why are the comments of an Australian not counted?
>
> NPRM 05-143 is about UNITED STATES radio regulations, Jimmie.
>
> Is Australia part of the United States? No? Why not?
honestly there is one I think your logic is off since it isn't a true
vote and HF form the US does ( at least I am so informed) reach AU it
is not inappropreate for them to comment on our HF reg or for we yanks
to comment on their's
but i don't think that it affect enough to want to go through all the
coments myself.
it is just a though on my part
>
>>Is citizenship a requirement to be counted? How about residency? Why?
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk...all that CHILDISH questioning, like a petulant
> four-year-old kid bothering Mommy. :-)
>
> Jimmie still has to CHECK it all out by READING ALL the filings
> on WT Docket 05-235. He should. He just can't accept "un-
> verfied" tabulations without his decreeing that everything comes
> out as he wants it. :-)
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
_________________________________________
Leo
>Leo wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>
>> >From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>
>> >>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >>>Leo wrote:
>> >>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>> >>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>snip
>
>When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more popular today than when
>I was a kid.
About the same time as you were - I was born in 1955.
Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an
apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the
"popularity" of the hobby then or now.
In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per minute, not
our easy 5. Today, there are vast numbers of amateurs who hold
licenses where no code test was required - around half of the total.
How many amateur licenses would have been issued back then if a 'no
code' license had been available? - I'd speculate that there would
have been a lot!
As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then
seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it
appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on
this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about
amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the
majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the
activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!
>
>snip
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY
73,Leo
an_old_friend
indeed at least some more I would clearly have had a license 20 years
beore I did without code test requirement
>
> As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back then
> seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby than it
> appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available anywhere on
> this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew about
> amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that the
> majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
> even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested in the
> activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!
or preahps worse think that Ham radio is CB radio (IMO CB is ok but it
very limited compared to ham radio)
N2...@aol.com
> On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >Leo wrote:
> >> On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> >From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
> >> >>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> >>>Leo wrote:
> >> >>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> >>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
> >> >>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
> >> >>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >> >>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >snip
> >
> >When were you a kid, Leo? Ham radio is far more
> >popular today than when I was a kid.
> About the same time as you were - I was born in 1955.
Then we're almost exactly the same "vintage".
>
> Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing
> today is an
> apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the
> "popularity" of the hobby then or now.
Why? I realize that we have to allow for the population
increase. But when you do that, the inescapable conclusion
is that the ratio of the number of hams to the total population is more
now than it was in 1955, or 1965, or 1975, etc. Only very recently has
the growth curve flattened out.
> In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an
> amateur
> license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
> minute, not our easy 5.
It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
the Technician lost its code test requirement.
Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
and the training methods.
> Today, there are vast numbers of amateurs who hold
> licenses where no code test was required - around half of the
> total.
In the USA or Canada?
Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but
there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test.
> How many amateur licenses would have been issued back then if
> a 'no
> code' license had been available? - I'd speculate that there
> would have been a lot!
Maybe. And if the written test were trimmed down to almost nothing,
there may have been more, too.
And you'd think that increasing the testing requirements would have
reduced the number of hams significantly, right?
Yet here in the USA, the exact opposite happened in the 1970s.
There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what
they do when they have the license.
>
> As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back > then
> seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby > than it
> appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
> anywhere on
> this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew > about
> amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that > the
> majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the
> hobby
> even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested > in the
> activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!
But are you and your friends a representative sample?
When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
with a ham.
I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and
white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from
rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a
dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half
were inactive or minimally active.
In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and
emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in
the 4 years I was there.
The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested.
It was space for an antenna and money for equipment.
Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun
thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the
necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license.
IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
TV or a movie.
Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity",
what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or
"recognition by the public".
73 de Jim, N2EY
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Leo wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2005 09:40:10 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >Leo wrote:
>> >> On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> >From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am
>> >> >>On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> >> >>>Leo wrote:
>> >> >>>> On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> >>>> >From: N...@AOL.COM on Oct 14, 9:20 am
>> >> >>>> >>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> >> >>>> >>> <N...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> >> >>>> >>> > LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> Comparing the total number of amateur licenses existing today is an
>> apples-to-oranges comparison, and not a true indicator of the
>> "popularity" of the hobby then or now.
>
>Why?
"Why?" ...it shoots down your rationalizations for one... :-)
> I realize that we have to allow for the population
>increase. But when you do that, the inescapable conclusion
>is that the ratio of the number of hams to the total population is more
>now than it was in 1955, or 1965, or 1975, etc.
Tsk, tsk...the "inescapable conclusion" obtained from comparison
of filings on WT Docket 05-235 of 2005 is that the Belief in the
efficacy of morse code is less than it was in 1975, 1965, or 1955.
> Only very recently has the growth curve flattened out.
In the last two and a half years, this "growth" has been negative.
>> In the '60s, morse code was a mandatory requirement for an amateur
>> license (up here anyway) - and at a difficult 13 words per
>> minute, not our easy 5.
>
>It was a requirement for all US ham licenses until 1991, when
>the Technician lost its code test requirement.
That code test is STILL an absolute pass-fail separate test
for any amateur radio privileges below 30 MHz.
The Technician DID NOT LOSE its code test requirement. The
former Technician class got RENAMED to "Technician Plus." :-)
>Whether 13 wpm is "difficult" or not depends on the person
>and the training methods.
Riiiiiiight...ALL human beings have the SAME aptitudes and
abilities! All one has to do is "work hard" in order to
pass a federally-mandated morse test in order to transmit
below 30 MHz as an amateur.
Tsk. That is NOT required for General Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator license holders at HF and below.
That is NOT required for UNLICENSED CB radio operators on
27 MHz, yet their signals can - during certain propagation
conditions - be heard all over the world.
>Slightly less than half of US hams hold Technician licenses, but
>there's no way of knowing how many have passed the code test.
A mere 48+ plus percent of ALL USA amateur radio licensees
are Technician class. The Technician class (exclusive of
the Technician PLUS class) is over TWICE as numerous as
General class (most numerous of the "code tested" classes).
>There's also the factor of how long somebody stays interested. And what
>they do when they have the license.
That's NOT a LEGAL requirement, is it? :-)
The ONLY requirement I can find in all of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R.
as to "doing" when a person has an amateur radio license is to
OPERATE LEGALLY ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS. Is there something
I missed in Part 97 about "building from scratch," "devotion to
morse code," or being an acolyte at the Church of St. Hiram?
>> As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back
>> then
>> seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby
>> than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
>> anywhere on
>> this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew
>> about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that
>> the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
>> even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested
>> in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!
>
>But are you and your friends a representative sample?
Why not? YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample"
of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-)
[apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan]
>When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
>what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
>with a ham.
In 50 years little has changed in that regard... :-)
Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely
needed?
>I grew up in a suburb of Philadelphia that was mostly blue- and
>white-collar middle class families. Lots of kids, houses ranging from
>rowhomes to big single Dutch Colonials. Yet there were less than a
>dozen hams in the whole township then, all spread out, and about half
>were inactive or minimally active.
"Typical?" :-)
Tsk, didn't you claim to have begun amateur radio in another
state?
>In my high school (grades 9/10/11/12), which had over 2500 boys and
>emphasized math and science, there were perhaps a half-dozen hams in
>the 4 years I was there.
Ah, an "all boys" school. That may explain a lot...?
In my high school in the middle west (northern Illinois), only
three grades (we had a "junior high school" now known as a
"middle school" for some kind of PC reason). We had a mere
900 or so of mixed gender and NONE were licensed as radio
amateurs. [sunnuvagun!]
At the Big 50th Reunion my high school class had in 2001, NONE
mentioned anything about "getting a ham license" after
graduation. However, to be fair about it, one did become the
manager of a supermarket which had a meat department selling
ham.
>The main problem wasn't code or theory, for those who were interested.
>It was space for an antenna and money for equipment.
Amazing how the story changes as time goes on... :-)
NOBODY had an "attic antenna" back in those ancient days?
Tsk, the "beer can vertical" started in the 1950s...
NOBODY managed to attend a Field Day exercise back then?
[were there any parks to hold them in?]
NOBODY scrounged for "old radio parts" to build a whole
station for $100 then?
>Most people, young or old, thought ham radio looked like a kind of fun
>thing, when they found out about it. But not enough to spend the
>necessary time and money to set up a station, let alone get a license.
Too busy playing with car fix-ups?
They couldn't get part-time jobs to afford $100 to build a
"Southgate" transceiver?
Well, I have to give you slack on that. "Surplus" in the late
1940s was very inexpensive: $6 for a brand-new Command Set
receiver, $12 for a brand-new Command Set transmitter, $18 for
the Command Set antenna tuning unit and modulator...at H&H
Electronics, co-owned by Gene Hubbel (then W9ERU, later W7DI
and then SK...a VERY high-rate tested morseman). Tsk, I used
my part-time earnings to buy and convert (to 110 VAC power)
TWO Command Set stations...sold them quickly at a very modest
profit by 1950. "Surplus" radios cost much more 30 years later.
>IMHO one of the biggest reasons ham radio isn't better known
>is that it's not a very "visual" thing - it doesn't translate well to
>TV or a movie.
Really? Ernest Lehman didn't think so. He wrote a fairly
popular novel entitled "The French Atlantic Affair" which was
made into a two-part TV movie on one of the networks. Lehman
was a respected award-winning screenwriter ("North by Northwest"
is perhaps the most notable). Lehman was also a licensed ham.
Of course, CB Radio has been featured in many a TV show and
movie such as "Convoy," "Smokey and the Bandit," and (would
you believe this title) "Flatbed Annie and Sweetiepie"...not
to mention an essential part of "The Dukes of Hazzard" series.
A later movie, "Frequency" used amateur radio as essential to
enable communications time-travel between deceased father and
son, but that was more science-fantasy in its plotline and
didn't really showcase radio as much as the supernatural.
>Maybe we're using the wrong term - perhaps instead of "popularity",
>what you are describing is better described as "visibility" or
>"recognition by the public".
Tsk. You should have a long heart-to-heart talk with ARRL
Public Relations (excuse me, "Media Advisors") people on
getting amateur radio more popular with the general public.
ARRL hasn't done much in THAT regard for the last half
century...they've spent most of their time preaching to the
choir to try and enlarge their membership numbers (haven't
done too well there, either, still only 1 out of 5 licensed
U.S. radio amateurs are members).
But, you are NOT offering any possible solutions to either
popularity, visibility, or recognition by any public. Your
aim is to disrupt any talk of eliminating the code test by
any means possible. NOT a democratic-principle effort on
your part. But, it's par for the course in this newsgroup.
kb9...@yahoo.com
Len there is a secert part of the ITU and Part 97 included since the
Gergam Soeveit non agression where as part of the Us agreeing to the
partitions of Polands US hams of that day the right to demand Morse
Code testing for the next 6 million years
Hams get access to these protocols when they pass the old 13 wpm
standard so no new access is allowed
>
>>> As far as populatity goes, I'd say that the general public back
>>> then
>>> seemed to be far more aware of even the existence of the hobby
>>> than it appears to be today (wonder if there's a survey available
>>> anywhere on
>>> this anywhere.....). For example, all of my friends and I knew
>>> about amateur radio back then - both of my teenage sons indicate that
>>> the majority of their contemporaries have no idea at all that the hobby
>>> even exists. Those who are aware are pretty much disinterested
>>> in the activity - they have more fun and interesting things to do!
>>
>>But are you and your friends a representative sample?
>
> Why not? YOU seem to hold yourself as a "representative sample"
> of the very model of a modern major marvel in amateur radio. :-)
>
> [apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan]
I love I can almost read it as you intend but the G&S makes it trip
over my tongue
>
>>When I was growing up, most people, kids or adults, had no idea
>>what ham radio was unless they were related to or good friends
>>with a ham.
>
> In 50 years little has changed in that regard... :-)
>
> Where is the ARRL Public Relations effort when it is sorely
> needed?
the ARRL is AWOL
you think Dudley will call for them to be shot?
thank been trying to remeber the title of that movie I will have to
check if it avable in in DVD
but on the tangent is my memeroy faulty or didn't those hams in voled
(the land station was a Girl ham as I recall) violate FCC rules and
use a Code in violation of the rules (except for the emergency nature
of the transmisiion
_________________________________________
N2...@aol.com
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote
>
> > Heck, most people with computers don't write software,
> > they simply use
> > applications written by others.
>
> "Heck, most hams don't build radios, they simply use
> radios built by others."
Hardware vs. software, but right you are, Hans.
Of course some of us do build radios - and computers...
> > but in late 1962
TYPO!
1952
> > the FCC gave all ham operating priviliges to Generals and
> > above.
> No they didn't.
Yes, it was 1952. Actually, the announcement of the change
was in December of 1952 but didn't go into effect until February of
1953.
> Some privs (satelite stations, as at least one example) were
> reserved for Amateur Extras into the 70's.
I checked my 1962 copy of the ARRL License Manual, which has a reprint
of the entire FCC section on regulations for the amateur service, plus
selected parts of the Communications Act. There's no mention of special
privileges for Advanceds or Extras at all.
No specific mention of satellite or repeaters, either.
The rules changed in 1967 with the first phase of incentive licensing,
so maybe somewhere in there the verbiage about satellites got put in.
> But other than some isolated privs like that,
> General, Conditional, Advanced,
> and Extra all had very similar "full" privileges going back to > the early 50's.
Yep. February 1953 to November 1968.
> Disincentive licensing changed that in the late 60's.
November 22 1968 and again in 1969 - when Generals, Conditionals and
Advanceds lost access to parts of some bands.
I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968,
had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> KØHB wrote:
cut
> I remember well - I'd just earned the Advanced in the summer of 1968,
> had full privilges for a few weeks, and then they were gone.
and you are still taking no chance that the rest of us will know you
were cheated back then
I agree you were cheated and the ARRL with the FCC fucked up and realy
screwed Ham radio, and ham
could we please move on to say this century sometime
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY