Leo wrote:


some snippage


Very interesting - I haven't read "200 Meters and Down" - I'll look
for a copy.

Very interesting reading, Leo. It should be part of the testing regimen!


However, the regulatory agencies likely see the "trained pool of
operators and experimenters" as the original benchmark for the
service. What I was hoping to stimulate in this thread was some
thought regarding what the goals of the service are relevant to today,
and then use that as a guide to what qualifications and testing are
relevant to meet those goals.

Somehow, it's not working out quite that way....

Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a
decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted
one post - mine.


The ARS is certainly not a service born of regulations - but it exists
today because the regulators allow it to do so - if we don't have a
clear idea of specifically why it should continue to exist, or what it
should be composed of, how can we justify it if and when the time
comes? We cannot convince regulators to maintain CW testing, as an
example, if the best arguement that we can come up with is "history"!
It was put there by regulation for a reason - and it needs a reason to
survive. Regulators don't deal in nostalgia....and if a push comes to
approve a potentially multi-billion dollar rollout of a service like
BPL, they are going to be hard-pressed to stave it off on our behalf
without a solid justification of why the ARS is still important!


Yes once again it is time to fight. If all we can offer is our ability to
TALK on the radio, there isn't much justification for the continuation of
Amateur Radio with all the frequency privileges we have today.


That was one of the points that I was hoping to raise in this
discussion. If it is a pure hobby, it is difficult to justify a lot
of testing and qualification levels. If, however, it is to train
folks to provide 'para-professional' backup to Emergency services,
then the standards would be considerably higher, and qualifications
more easily justifiable.

It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure
hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing.
Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever
emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means
they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO.


I raised this question because, frankly, the vast majority of
arguements that I have read in this newsgroup have been driven by
emotion, nostalgia or historical references. If someone proposes that
CW should continue to have exclusive band assignments because it is a
great mode to use during emergencies due to its inherent readibility
through noise, and that CW testing should continue to ensure that a
pool of CW-competent operators is maintained for emergency comms, then
OK, good point - maybe it should.

Although this is a good and valid point, those who don't know code and don't
want to learn it have successfully outshouted the proponents of code testing
so that the regulators, who know nothing of the merits of the code
themselves, look like they are going to go along with it.


Seems to be the direction that other administrations around the globe
have gone - and there is indeed a strong push in North America to
usher it out as well. Personally, I have yet to hear an arguement
that would convince me that code testing should remain a mandatory
requirement. I was hoping that someone would come up with a solid
technical or functional reason that would leadd me to believe
otherwise - but there doesn't seem to be one.

The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as
those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean
out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a
purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as
each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite
operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing.

I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the
same thing as the core.


Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or
QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment
originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and
commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering
with their signals, and order them to stop.

This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed
to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few
methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out
of the picture. So what's left?



A secondary purpose may
have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur
stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 -
unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW
should assume the same status as the other available operating modes -
permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by
practical examination.

My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to
the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a
logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single
arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary
requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF.
There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and
fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer
quantifiable - but no hard reasons.

you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to
keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions.


Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!

Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about
satellite operations!!!! 8^)

The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me
of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive
schools" where the student made up their own curriculum



OTOH, if someone proposes that CW
testing should continue because thats the way its been since the
beginning of time, then - who cares? What relevance does that
statement have to do with today? So what?

Successful businesses have learned to do this type of review on their
internal processes in order to survive, in the interest of efficiency
(and, for fun, watch what happens when some idiot tells the
departmental VP that something is being done because it has always
been done that way - wow! - never happens twice!). If something is
being done, and no one can properly justify it, then out it goes.
Replaced by a new and (hopefully) better process, or abandoned
altogether if no longer needed. We could learn something from this
too.

But sometimes they learn after the fact that although they couldn't come up
with a justification to keep something, it turns out to be necessary to
function efficiently and they have to reinstate it.. Although touted for
decades as the wave of the future, "the paperless office" still has not
become a reality. We always need paper documents for something.


True - errors are certainly possible when re-engineering any complex
process. In fact, the only guaranteed way to avoid error is do do
nothing at all. But, to continue along without occasional review and
adjustment can have much more serious consequences. For example, if
Polaroid had not continually re-invented their processes over the
years, they would still be trying to market their old 'instant
picture' camera and film technology - which would be virtually
unmarketable today, in an era of digital cameras and home photo
printing technology. Those out of sync with progress do not survive.

Our hobby is technologically based, too. By virtue of the fact that it
is a hobby, though, there is no need to retire older technology in
favour of the leading edge stuff (in fact, some hobbies exist because
they are the only place left to find people who share their interest
in the obsolete - Antique Radios, or Steam Trains for example). Why,
however, would we realistically expect newcomers to the hobby to be
forced to learn specific 'niche' areas of this, or any other
avocation? If there is a real need to do so, then OK - make it a
requirement. But, if there isn't - why do it? "Because that's the
way it has always been" is not a reason to do, there must be a
specific benefit to keeping it, or specific hazard if it is
discontinued - complacency won't do the job. We test regulatory
knowledge, because the operator must know the legal limits within
which the station must be operated. We test radio knowledge, because
operators should know enough about how the equipment functions to
ensure that they operate it correctly, and stay within the legal
limits. And the FCC, IC and other worldwide regulatory authorities
tested CW proficiency because it was an ITU requirement for all
amateurs to be proficient in the sending and receiving of CW when
operating on the bands under 30 MHz. Solid reasons for each - reasons
that can change as the world evolves. Without the support of the
underlying reason,


Someone has suggested that if amateur radio were invented today,
without the benefit of all of the history and tradition, it would be a
version of FRS or maybe CB - if that is true, we have a serious
problem when industry comes knocking for more of our frequency
spectrum. How do we convince the regulators that it remains an
important service, if we believe that?


Simple show them that we are a resource with unique skills and resources and
numbers that cannot be found in any other radio service.


Exactly - but if we show them that what we're really interested in is
protecting the class structure, hierarchy and outdated traditions of
what is essentially a hobby, we're not going to convince anyone.

Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a
hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as
hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal
stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only
the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of
giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for
are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's
a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies.


I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking,
technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills
to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and
security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions
regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch
of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency
testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do
so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit.

But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward
thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand
why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the
removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide
that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is
beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator
between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to
do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators.

Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have
a calculator?

- Mike KB3EIA -