|
Docket Scorecard
From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am
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? :-) |
Docket Scorecard
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: 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). 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. 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. 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.... 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 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 |
Docket Scorecard
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am 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: http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-...pril-1947.html http://www.dc-daylight.ltd.uk/Valve-...-May-1947.html 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. |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.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 |
Docket Scorecard
Leo wrote:
On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message 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 |
Docket Scorecard
|
Docket Scorecard
From: on Thurs 20 Oct 2005 02:29
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Oct 19, 6:31 am 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 |
Docket Scorecard
From: on Oct 20, 9:40 am
Leo wrote: On 15 Oct 2005 14:02:03 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Oct 15, 9:36 am On 14 Oct 2005 15:02:32 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote: From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com