Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c

It worked just fine for me, Carl -- and I'm a technically-incompetent,
computer-illiterate Pro-Coder! (I guess I'd better throw this in: 8-) )

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Having given this document due consideration, I can't say that it changes my
mind about anything code testing. I find this one passage particularly
interesting:

"Morse will probably retain most of it's exclusive band segments, at least for
now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in the
future. Several countries no longer have exclusive segments, but depend
instead on voluntary band plans. In fact, our 160-meter band works this way
today, with surprisingly few problems"

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station, and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

Another quote:

"Will we lose something because we will no longer have the knowledge that all
hams can at least understand and send CW, even if very slowly? Maybe, maybe
not. You would be surprised at the number of applicants I see that actually
want to learn CW - they think it will be fun. There's a novel concept -
someone learning a skill because it is fun, not because the government says you
must do it."

If this is so, where is the objection *from those hams who _want to learn CW_*
to being code tested? I've seen the vast majority of new hams who have taken
the time and effort to learn the Morse code approach the code tests with
eager enthusiasm, and a great sense of satisfaction once they succeeded.

Again quoting:

"Obviously, removing the Morse test requirement will make it easier for
thousands of interested persons to join our hobby. There are many, who for
whatever reason have a real, not imagined, problem with learning the code.
Call it stage fright, a psychological block, hearing problems, poor recognition
skills, whatever you want; there are indeed those who literally cannot master
the code, no matter how hard they try. Lazy, you say? Anyone can make it to
5 WPM, you say? They just don't try, you say? Apparently you have not
participated at hundreds of exam sessions. I have. I have seen grown men and
women with tears in their eyes, frustrated, angry, sometimes back next time,
sometimes giving up on ham radio altogether. Where's the gain in having
someone give up?"

I have some personal experience here. I've had all the above mentioned
"problems"
with learning the code, and have made all the same excuses. However, I now
know
what my problem was -- I didn't *want* to be a radio amateur bad enough to
overcome these so-called problems. It was only after I took a much different
personal approach, involving a more mature attitude toward the requirement and
making the personal determination that there must be some good reason for it,
that I was able to finally succeed. In so doing, I had a much larger world of
amateur radio opened for me. Moreover, having succeeded in learning the code, I
subsequently found myself using it -- a lot -- and enjoying it immensely even
though I never thought I could.

Again quoting:

" Are you proud that you "made it"? Can you not find something that another
person can do that you would find extremely difficult if not impossible?
Could you win the Tour de France bicycle race - even if you trained every day
for the rest of your life? Could you invent the Laser? Could you paint the
Mona Lisa? Not that painting a work of art or riding a bicycle has all that
much to do with radio, it's just to point out that while you may have been able
to master the code with some degree of success, that doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has the same ability as you. I would argue that the ability to
master the code has no apparent connection with how "good" a ham a person is.
What we want, I think you will agree, is someone who will respect our
traditions, follow the rules, bring enthusiasm and vigor to the hobby, and make
a positive contribution.

So, who's to say that mastering Morse code skills makes a better ham? I would
not be so arrogant as to think such a thing. Every time I get to feeling
superior, I look around, and guess what? - - - I can find someone who is
better at something, anything, than me. I can also name several individuals
that I think are in one way or another "better hams" than I, better operators,
better engineers, better at some aspect of our hobby than me. Might that be
true with you too?"

I can honestly say that overcoming my objections to learning the code did, in
fact, make me a better ham, for the simple reason that it made that mode
available to me *as* a ham. Were it not for the requirement to take the code
tests, I would never have gained that capability, and it is my belief that new
radio amateurs in a "no code test" licensing environment will simply bypass
this mode entirely. I'm not saying that some tiny minority of them won't try
it and even gain useful proficiency at it on their own initiative or with the
encouragement of dedicated Elmers, but I don't think it very likely that it
will happen in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as it had under the
previous set of licensing standards. I fear that there will, in fact, be a
progressive loss of the total numbers of hams who know and use the Morse/CW
mode, eventually zeroing out. This is too great a loss to our service, for I
believe that the many well-known benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode
will be just as relevant to amateur radio in the 21st Century as it was in the
twentieth.

Final quote:

"CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on. We
no longer require applicants to draw schematic diagrams, demonstrate how to
neutralize a triode vacuum tube amplifier, lots of other things. Lets be
gentlemen and give CW a decent, respectful, wave. Remembering our old friend,
but looking forward, not backward. Morse code will live forever. As long as
someone cares about the history and mystery of early radio, and lots of hams
do, CW will be around. Like anything else, when a person finds he or she has
a need to use Morse code, they will learn it. Want to work DX, or QRP, or weak
signal VHF, or Moon-bounce? Better learn the code, or you won't have a very
satisfying experience."

Wiley has stated that it is incumbent on those of us who know and use the
Morse/CW mode to encourage newcomers to learn it and love it as much as we do.
Therefore, as a licensing requirement, it only deserves a "respectful wave" in
the future. Well, unfortunately, in this age of advanced technology where our
own equipment is no longer within the technical capabilities of average radio
amateurs to build and/or service, we can pretty much say the same about all the
technical written examination requirements as well. He goes on for pages about
his new entry-level license class, which, IMHO, is unnecessary. The present
Technician syllabus is proven to be achievable by people from all walks of
life. If there are any serious RF or electrical safety issues to be addressed,
I would submit that perhaps we need to add some emphasis there, rather than
further reducing licensing standards simply for the nebulous purpose of
allowing more and younger hams to "get their feet wet"
as it were.

I think the primary challenge ham radio faces, now and in the future, is it's
relative lack of publicity. It is safe to say that the majority of people
these these days simply cannot relate to amateur radio, mainly because very few
of us simply don't relate to the concept of "radio" in the first place. We
turn things on and they work. Our electronic devices, RF-based or not, are
totally taken for granted. I believe that what we need to do to incite
interest and curiosity in radio communication is to keep doing things "the old
way" as far as learning and licensing are concerned, but to bolster that with
some good public information about Amateur Radio as a concept in it's most
basic terms. This is usually done in terms of it's public service potential,
and that's fine and dandy, but we also need to emphasize the elements of
learning, exploration, and just plain fun. Fortunately, young people are still
quite receptive to such things, and, ironically, usually embrace the challenge
of learning the Morse code much more willingly than those of us who simply want
to flex our consumer muscles and make our voices heard in far-away places after
throwing a pile of money at the necessary technology. However, this will only
doom us to creating an ARS filled with more and more of the kinds of jaded,
technically uninvolved "hams" that could become problems on-the-air. If the
equipment manufacturers were producing very low cost (I mean a couple of
hundred bucks, maximum) low-power basic transceivers, preferably in kit form,
which would be challenging enough to put together but still virtualy guaranteed
to work well, they'd sell like hotcakes to exactly the audience we wish to
address -- young people. In addition, putting them on the air, on the HF bands
and primarily in the CW and data modes, would create a demand for things like
fewer antenna restrictions in housing developments and, ultimately, more
capable (and expensive) equipment for when skills and technical knowledge
advanced to that stage. However, we won't get there if everyone keeps saying
"Ham Radio -- what's THAT???"

I am convinced that ensuring the future of the ARS has nothing to do with
licensing standards, including code testing. It has everything to do with our
public image -- or almost total lack thereof. The NCVEC petition doesn't
address this issue at all. Like everything involving Fred Maia, W5YI, it's all
about the code and getting rid of code testing. I don't think he will find his
answers to the nature of Amateur Radio in the 21st Century by looking there.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Nope ... can't get to that one either ... nor to www.qsl.net

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Jim,

That URL doesn't seem to be accessible ...

Carl - wk3c



Try this one http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/21stCentury.html

Dick




"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users
of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)

and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a
need
for more "lebensraum."

OK, I'll bite ... what the hell is "lebensraum" ???

Carl - wk3c


"living room"

It was one of the phrases used by Germany to justify it's expansion. Since
it's been a few years since I studies history, I don't recall if it was WWI
or WWII.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or
eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this. The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users
of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station,

I am NOT supporting phone band expansion, but I thought the
PCTA argument was that "CW was the easiest, simplest mode,
with the easiest to build equipment." ??? Why the turnabout???
(not that I agree that gear for other modes is any harder to
build than for CW ...)


"easiest mode to implement" is not quite the same as "easiest, simplest
mode, with the easiest to build equipment"

Here's the difference:

"easiest mode to implement" means open the box, plug in the radio, connect
antenna, and push the mike button.

"easiest, simplest mode, with the easiest equipment to build" means simpler
circuitry requirements, only an on/off "switch" to key the circuitry rather
than the more complex microphone unit, and so on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thanks for the URL, Jim

It is an interesting proposition. I've stated before that I can't justify
the *need* for CW, but I'll admit in my years of operating I never (and some
may have) experienced the jamming, swearing, or whatever on CW. Perhaps the
mode is too difficult for those of limited mentality who like to swear; more
likely they don't have the instant gratification of other folks yelling back
at them over a microphone.

One thing seems to stand out to me. If we are to attract and *keep* them,
we will likely have to allow some HF access, preferably on bands that will
have some dx capability. Although cw was the only mode on hf when I had my
novice ticket (1962/63), it was fun to communicate with states half a
continent away on a regular basis - if not other counties entirely. If it
is only VHF and above, we may experience a quick increase for folks wanting
to use the service as MURS or CB (but only for their family). If this
service was limited to those still in school, it might serve an excellent
purpose. As you may remember, the old novice license (back when it was
originally created) was *not* renewable and was good for only one year.
Perhaps the license could be extended until the individual reached the age
of 18.

As far as power limits go, they changed the limits years ago for the novice
from 75 watts input to 100 watts output (I think ... hmmm ...??). The
reality is that most commercially available equipment runs 100 watts out.
There are a few exceptions of 150 and 200 watts and, of course, there are
some qrp rigs and a few that will do 20 watts or so. Reality forces me to
question a limit that will likely be exceeded anyways and teach the
individual that rules are to be broken

Amateur radio does indeed compete with the internet and, upon thinking it
over, we will likely want hf access (likely including phone privileges) if
we wish to really "infect" new folks with the radio bug.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/03

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:


Folks,

Recently there has been mention of a paper by KL7CC titled "Amateur
Radio in the 21st Century". It can be downloaded in Word format from:

http://www.qsl.net/al7fs/NCVECplan.doc

That document spells out what the NCVEC leaders are thinking about in
terms of changes to the license structure as a result of WRC 2003.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Having given this document due consideration, I can't say that it changes my
mind about anything code testing. I find this one passage particularly
interesting:

"Morse will probably retain most of it's exclusive band segments, at least
for now. We are not addressing this issue at this time. This may change in
the
future. Several countries no longer have exclusive segments, but depend
instead on voluntary band plans. In fact, our 160-meter band works this way
today, with surprisingly few problems"

Maia et. al. are obviously leaving the door wide open to reduce or eliminate
exclusive CW/data segments, even possibly moving toward a totally "open"
bandplan on all amateur allocations. I cannot support this.

Nor I!

What I find interesting, too, is that the CW/data parts of the bands are always
referred to as "exclusive CW" with no mention that all of them on HF are also
shared by data modes. In fact, there is very little mention of data modes at
all.

The main
pressure for band segment re-allocation will come primarily from users of
SSB. This is simply because it's the easiest mode for any amateur to
implement in his/her own station, and if there should be an increase in the
total number of licensed radio amateurs, that's where there will be a need
for more "lebensraum."

Getting awful close to Godwin's Law there, Larry!

Again quoting:

" Are you proud that you "made it"?

Yes, I am. Is there something wrong with pride of achievement? Should I be
ashamed?

Can you not find something that another
person can do that you would find extremely difficult if not impossible?
Could you win the Tour de France bicycle race - even if you trained every day
for the rest of your life? Could you invent the Laser? Could you paint the
Mona Lisa? Not that painting a work of art or riding a bicycle has all that
much to do with radio, it's just to point out that while you may have been
able
to master the code with some degree of success, that doesn't necessarily mean
that everyone has the same ability as you.

Note that passing the 5 wpm code test is being compared to world-class
achievements in the worlds of art, sport, and science. That's just not a valid
comparison at all. 5 wpm is more like riding a bike at 5 mph for a mile on a
level road, painting a recognizable human face or assembling a flashlight.

More quotes

So, who's to say that mastering Morse code skills makes a better ham? I
would
not be so arrogant as to think such a thing.

It's equally "arrogant" to support either side. Which is to say, not arrogant
at all.


Final quote:

"CW is a great mode. It's fun. I enjoy it. And, it's time to move on.

What exactly does "time to move on" mean here?

We
no longer require applicants to draw schematic diagrams, demonstrate how to
neutralize a triode vacuum tube amplifier, lots of other things. Lets be
gentlemen and give CW a decent, respectful, wave. Remembering our old
friend,
but looking forward, not backward."

It sounds more and more like he wants the mode, not just the test, to go away.


Wiley has stated that it is incumbent on those of us who know and use the
Morse/CW mode to encourage newcomers to learn it and love it as much as we
do.
Therefore, as a licensing requirement, it only deserves a "respectful wave"
in
the future. Well, unfortunately, in this age of advanced technology where
our
own equipment is no longer within the technical capabilities of average radio
amateurs to build and/or service,

WHOA! I disagree!

He says the same thing ('most of us took the practical approach and bought a
manufactured rig') and it's simply not true.


He goes on for pages
about
his new entry-level license class, which, IMHO, is unnecessary. The present
Technician syllabus is proven to be achievable by people from all walks of
life.

Heck, the General has been achieved by a six-year-old and the Extra - the old
prerestructuring 5 written tests Extra - by an eight-year-old.

If there are any serious RF or electrical safety issues to be
addressed,
I would submit that perhaps we need to add some emphasis there, rather than
further reducing licensing standards simply for the nebulous purpose of
allowing more and younger hams to "get their feet wet"
as it were.

The biggest problems I have with the entry-level proposal are the removal of
"radio law" questions from its test and the free upgrades for Techs and
Advanceds.

The code test stuff is predictable and, IMHO, not the most important thing in
the paper at all. What's far more important is the "what happens after the code
test goes" stuff, which contains some very good ideas and some very bad ideas.

73 de Jim, N2EY