No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be
to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see.

Dan/W4NTI

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:43:26 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:

However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may
be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to
learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).

The only issue is whether the FCC should require demonstration of
ability to copy code as a part of the examination procedure - and
we all agree (inwardly or outwardly) that that will be going away
real soon.

Any other argument is meaningless.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to

learn

CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.


The issue is that morse has lost the need for exclusive
testing as a separate test element. Your analogy isn't equivalent
to boring school classes because the goal of those classes is and was
within the objectives of providing a complete education. FCC
licensing is not, however, the means to mandate a specific
skill capability for one mode.

But that's a different argument Bill. When this thing got rolling, I
was saying that anyone who does not get a General or above license at
the present time because they don't want to learn Morse does not want
the license badly enough to learn Morse code.

All quite a different argument.


For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out

of

an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend

to

because "it's just not me."

But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to
jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant,
but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of
hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a
problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn
the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case,
the requirement is the Morse test.


Sorry, you are expanding a lack of interest in morse as
a defining element as to one's overall interest in
amateur radio. That is simply untrue. There are thousands of
hams that have ZERO interest in morse, many have even
passed the tests to advance, yet they are excellent hams.

Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative
indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio.

It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement
goes away.




So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and do

make

the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are not
interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not try

to

see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough?

If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right
and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however.


That is absolutely true...for now.


If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they
don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the
effort.


I can say the same thing about learning or not learning
CPR. Are those that decide not to learn CW less
interested in safety than those that do? The answer is NO,
because there are many ways people can be far more safety
conscience than someone else who may know CPR.

No. If you want to give CPR, you had darn well better learn how, or
else the Red Cross isn't going to stand behind you when you crack those
ribs.

Indeed, just aboutanyone interested enough in learning CPR is going to
take the Red Cross classes, learn how, and be certified.

Those who aren't interested will probably not.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
Mike Coslo writes:

If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because
they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does
make the effort.


You're really describing the "hazing effect", AFAICS. I approve of CW
testing precisely because of this effect; after being forced to run
the gauntlet of CW practice and testing, many will decide they love
CW--but more importantly, their attitude to the ARS in general will be
affected by the fact of having spent effort (however minor) and jumped
through hoops (however simple) to get into it.

No, it's not a hazing effect I'm describing, its plain old *interest*
in the ARS.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Don't know about our local group but I heard something like around a 100
morse code contacts (all bands being used) and around 70-80 voice mode
contacts.

Myself and about 1/3 to 1/2 of our local club pretty much boycotted Field
Day this year..... (issues with local club)


Ya should have splintered off and done your own FD!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed there
for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO
THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight to
General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two
meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech. I
forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And I
KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will
explain why I think as I do.

Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was
saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn
those who chose not to do what you did.

- Mike KB3EIA -

You hear it now, when people yak about how much spectrum the "beepers"
have.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be
to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see.

Dan/W4NTI

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:43:26 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:


However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may
be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to
learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).

The only issue is whether the FCC should require demonstration of
ability to copy code as a part of the examination procedure - and
we all agree (inwardly or outwardly) that that will be going away
real soon.

Any other argument is meaningless.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Mike Coslo writes:

No, it's not a hazing effect I'm describing, its plain old
*interest* in the ARS.

I realize that--but of course plenty of people are interested in
communication but not CW, and signify it by choosing to get a no-code
Tech license.

Defining that as disinterest in "ARS" involves a question-begging
definition of ARS to be "amateur radio communication in various modes
INCLUDING CW."

Regards,
Len.

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:44 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be
to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see.

If Morse wasn't prohibited in the maritime community after all the
ocean-going large ships stopped carrying Morse-qualified radio
officers and both the USCG and the public coast stations stopped
offering Morse service, what makes you think that it would be
abolished for the ham community when the requirement for Morse
testing is deleted?

The "CWDC" (CW Deprived Conspiracy) can try hard - it won't do any good.

Watch and see. ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Amateur Extra Class the
old-fashioned way.

Because all the whinning folks out there and the politically correct FCC.

Argue that point Phil.

Dan/W4NTI

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:44 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will
be
to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see.

If Morse wasn't prohibited in the maritime community after all the
ocean-going large ships stopped carrying Morse-qualified radio
officers and both the USCG and the public coast stations stopped
offering Morse service, what makes you think that it would be
abolished for the ham community when the requirement for Morse
testing is deleted?

The "CWDC" (CW Deprived Conspiracy) can try hard - it won't do any good.

Watch and see. ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Amateur Extra Class the
old-fashioned way.

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY wrote):
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in
1992.

But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began
in 1990. Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5
wpm. And there were/are lots of accomodations available.

Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went
away.

The ITU allowed no-code licensing above 420 MHz in 1947 and above 30 MHz
in 1967, I think.

I think if you check, it was 1000 MHz in 1947 and 144 MHz in 1967. But the
principle is the same.

The first no-code licences were actually issued in
Australia in 1952, and the UK followed in 1963.

Japan in 1952, as well.

Of course, this time I don't think it will be another 50 years before
element 1 will be dropped!

Not even 50 weeks, probably.

The reason is that the ARRL did a 180 degree
turn on code testing, which is what led to the no-code Tech. The FCC would
have allowed no-code above 220 in the 70s. They proposed it and the league
talked them out of it! The ARRL would have us beleive otherwise, but it's
all on record.

WHOA! Hold on a second there!

First off, The earliest "serious" proposal for a nocodetest license in the USA
was
in 1975. FCC wanted to create a "dual ladder" license system, with no less than
seven classes of license! This was only a few years after the Incentive
Licensing mess of the '60s. (If you think people are ticked off about the code
test issue, you shoulda been around back then.)

As part of this seven-class system, there would have been a "Communicator"
license with extremely limited VHF/UHF privs and no code test.

The response in the amateur community (not just ARRL leadership) back then was
a resounding NO! FCC scrapped the idea.

Then in 1983, FCC started making noises about a nocodetest license, and again
the response from the amateur community was a resounding NO!.

But in 1989-1990, FCC tried yet a third time and this time made it clear they
really wanted a nocodetest amateur license. At the same time, they were
proposing to reallocate 220 to other services. The response from the amateur
community was no longer a resounding NO - it was more like "well, if the
license has limited VHF-UHF privileges, maybe it would be OK". Specifically,
feedback to the question "would you support or oppose a limited-privileges
VHF/UHF only license with no code test?" was divided 50-50 yes-no.

So the ARRL BoD proposed a compromise: Create a new class of license that would
focus on 220, increasing its usage. (The ARRL proposal did not include 2 meter
privs for the new license). FCC saw through the plan and simply dropped the
code test from the Tech. They compromised by only reallocating 220-222, not the
whole band.

The recent turn-about in ARRL BoD policy was partly the result of a meeting of
Region 3 IARU societies back about 2000. At that meeting, ARRL found itself to
be the lone member supporting retention of S25.5. It became clear that
"resistance was useless" and so the policy was quietly changed at the next BoD
meeting from "support" to "no opinion".

None of this is secret or denied by the ARRL. It's all been in the pages of QST
and on the website.

Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of those
changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s. There
was an initial surge when the changes happened, that's all.

It made less difference than it would have in, say, the 70s, and no-code
HF now will make less difference now than it would have in 90s, much less
the 70s.

MAybe - we'll never know for sure.

I'm not saying our hobby is dying, but interest seems to be
declining.

I mean no disrespect, Alun, but in the 35+ years I've been a ham, I've heard
that and similar reports. None of them ever came true.

What HAS changed is that some of the reasons people used to become hams have
disappeared. If all someone wants is electronic communication, there are lots
of other options, most of which either didn't exist or were prohibitively
expensive only a few decades ago.

Example: In 1972 I knew a girl whose father wrote for one of the big local
papers as TV critic. He had a Model 19 teletype machine in the dining room,
complete with paper tape setup and telephone line interface. He'd write his
columns, then punch a tape and send it to the office. He only went into the
office once a week or so. Today all he'd need is a laptop and a phone line,
costing a tiny fraction of what the Model 19 cost.

It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license
totals have increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000
by 2001.

If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely
doubt it.

I agree. There will just be a surge in interest for a while.

Which disproves the idea that the code test is some sort of "barrier" to a
license.

Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way
back in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would
say, isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.).

You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some
parts of the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore.

Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in
Internet use, which has changed the landscape.

Which would have happened regardless of S25.5.

To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will
continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done
with the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance
telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the folks
who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and '90s now
have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running routine
phone patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a minute.

Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with
discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any
financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or
it's just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation.

And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will
not change any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection have
become a practical necessity in most people's lives today.

73 de Jim, N2EY