Are we fooling ouselves again?

[ke5wj]

I disagree with many of your conclusions, which as you say are based on a non-representative sampling of QRZ.COM and intuition.

It is no secret that many hams are not active. I was busy with family and running a business for about 10 years and was not very active, even though ham radio is a very serious interest to me. That had nothing to do with CC&R's or anything else. It was just a matter of priorities. If you checked my log book during that time (I didn't even know about QRZ.COM), you would jump to the (erroneous) conclusion that I was not interested or whatever.

In my opinion (no, I didn't take a non-representative sample), the percentage of people seriously interested in ham radio has stayed fairly steady over the years, as you said. The growth has mainly been people who were convinced that ham radio had something for them and then discovered that it actually requires effort and learning. They think they are getting something for nothing. Some people seem to think that large numbers of hams is a good thing. I'm not convinced of that. I think it might be better to have fewer total hams that are definitely interested and active. More does not neccesarily mean better.

As far as CC&R's go, I don't worry too much about them. I've spent most of my time as an active ham in college dormitories, apartments, and with an XYL who doesn't appreciate the beauty of antennas or radios. She carries a lot more influence than some group of neighbors! That has never, ever stopped me from getting on the air or putting out a signal. It did make me study antenna theory and electronics to figure out how to get around the lack of giant antennas. It also made me worry about lots of details of my station setup to make sure it was as efficient as possible. It also made me hone my operating skills to get the most out of what time and equipment I had available to operate.

Now I don't belittle anyone who has big antennas, plenty of space, and no antenna restrictions. I'd like to have more space, too. But at the same time it seems to me that those who cry about CC&R's in many (not all) cases would rather yell and scream and fight political battles, instead of using a little ingenuity and getting on the air anyway. That seems to have become the "American way", and hams are no different than the rest of the population.

It seems to me that the CC&R issue is related to the no-code arguments in terms of attitudes. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I got my ticket, I got it in spite of having to learn CW because I wanted the ticket. If I had been required to pass a typing test, learn Swahili, take a soldering test, a CW test, or what ever else, I would have practiced and studied and done it because I wanted a ham ticket so bad I could taste it. These days people cry about the requirements instead. And once I got my ticket, I got a station on the air in spite of not having money for commercial gear and living in a college dormitory where I wasn't even supposed to open the window. Not because I was poor or smart or anything else. Simply because I wanted to operate. These days people complain about CC&R's. It seems like the attitude is that if they can't have a big antenna, they aren't interested. Is that the amateur spirit?

Which scenario better encourages innovation and operating under emergency conditions? I fail to see that CC&R's stifle innovation, development of operating skills, international goodwill, or anything else on which the amateur radio service is predicated.

In short, my home station will disappear when I no longer have a home or interest enough to put together a station and for no other reasons. If others think that they shouldn't have a ham station in their home because they can't have a big antenna, well, I question whether they are really seriously interested in ham radio anyway.

[K6UEY]

While we are dwelling in the realm of assuming the ratio of active Hams per capita has decreased, can we also consider maybe with the entry level qualifications reduced to such a low level, could it be a large number of individuals get in to Ham Radio not fully understanding what a Ham does or is required to do.

Once into Ham Radio they find they must put forth effort and study to upgrade and are not willing to expend the effort. Thusly the number of Hams climbs but the activity level remains the same. If a Ham is going to spend all the time on the Internet or on 2 Meters is there much need to update his QRZ infromation ? If he /she is not willing to encompass all that Ham Radio has to offer do they really care if they are not allowed to put up a reasonable tower or even a resonably high dipole antenna.
As Govenor Dewey of New York (I think ) discovered you can't always rely on polls to give you accurate information. The OF's know what I mean the Newbies can look it up.....HIHI
There is no mistakeing that Ham Radio has and is changing,the qualifications for entry have been and are being reduced and the purpose is changing with a couple of generations whose attitudes are different than those before them. The question is will the FCC rewrite the Part 97 to reflect the new attitudes or will they state the purpose is no longer being fulfilled and abolish Ham Radio so that the commercial ventures can utilize the frequencies occupied by Ham Radio presently.
Only Father Time can give us the accurate answer but then again he is an OF also, so who is going to listen to him ??
Enjoy Ham Radio and the life time of pleasure,while you can....................... # #73, # ORV

[N7CPC]

If New Jersey is representative of national ANYTHING, we're in trouble! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[W5ATX]

Being in New Jersey is a cross to bear. #Trust me, I'm here.

Walt is exactly correct. #So is Orv. #I've said these things myself, but I think we're the old curmudgeons N8LXR has written about in another thread. #Yes, times change, but amateur radio is still supposedly a technically oriented SERVICE. #I haven't figured out yet then why it's politically incorrect to expect hams to have some technical know-how. #But it is now. #I've been lambasted here for suggesting that hams should know something. #I've been told I'm offending by suggesting a ham should know things like that CW is copied in the SSB mode on a rig rather than AM or FM. #I've been hung out to dry a few times for wondering why hams have been here asking how to build a dipole. #Or what RST means. #So ok, the FCC doesn't care, neither should we. #Why don't we just change this from the Amateur Radio Service to # . . . #I dunno . . . pick a name: #the "we're here to chat radio service?"

As for "inconvenient" ham stations, I grew up in the projects. #I'm sure I'm not the only ham who has either. #But I managed to get on the air. #I learned to make good use of #22 and #24 wire. # I replaced it frequently too. #Got chased by the cops on the highway that went past the back of our "complex," got chased by the housing authority folks a few times, but still I made contacts. #That pic on my webpage of my shack in 1976 is from my bedroom in that very place. #But like Walt, I wanted to get on the air and make contacts. #I did what had to be done. #And in the process, I had time to learn to enjoy learning and working for it.

As for passing a Swahili test, soldering test, etc., the soldering test came when it was time to put up or stay quiet and off the air. #That 6L6 didn't wire itself into a circuit to magically make RF. #And the Swahili test may as well have been. #My elmer was an old time railroad telegrapher and he decided I would meet "extra" requirements for my novice. #I learned morse alright - International AND American. #And I copied both. And later I worked the old man and his old railroad buddies on the air with both, and I learned to copy code from a sounder (which I still have), and ya know why? #I wanted to get on the air, and he was the guy who was going to tell the FCC I passed the code test. #I did and he did. #And I appreciate it now even more than I did then. #That which is obtained too cheaply is esteemed too lightly. Maybe all that hard work (and yes, admittedly, more than was required by the FCC even then) makes me appreciate my operating privledges even more than having taken all my tests at the FCC office.

Ham radio will not die of antenna restrictions. #That would be too easy. #Ham radio is going to die under the weight of too many takers who can't give back. #Orv hit the nail on the head: #eventually FCC will decide we no longer are the service worthy of the frequencies we have. #Ham radio will have committed suicide. #When the cash stops flowing to New England, say bye bye.

[KB9YFI]

Ham radio is not going to die because of too low entry requirements. If it is going to die it is because of CW. There are enough hardships that the modern ham has to overcome but that in not enough for the Sour old Curmudgeons. No, they have to keep ARTIFICIAL hurdles in place long after they are important or even relevant. The number of hams that are active? There are a number of active CW-only basement-dwellers in my area that never come out to the ham events. They never volunteer for public service events. They sit around and bitch on 40M about how us techs are ruining ham radio. The CW requirement is keeping a lot of new blood out of the hobby. There are enough hurdles in trying to get an antenna up. Enough hurdles in purchasing very expensive equipment and putting a station together that works well. But to make the Old Farts happy they have to put artificial legal restrictions on as well because they "had it hard" when they were first becoming hams. Today the government takes more than half of our money away. Our wives have to leave the house and get jobs to make enough money these days to put food on the table for our kids. We have to work extra hours because of stupid government regulations and taxes. Now you want us to waste time learning an archaic binary language that 95% of hams admittedly never use? That is just plain stupid. That is the reason the hobby is stalling. Be honest with yourselves. The amateur population is aging and soon great numbers will be falling into 6-foot holes to never seen again amongst the living. This is what will decimate the ham population. If we continue to fail in recruiting new members in the under-60 crowd then in a few years the hobby will not die but all its members will. I just laugh at how people can fool themselves into blaming everyone else for the problem but can't see that silly things like the CW-requirement are just killing the hobby and not letting it evolve. So be it. Keep the requirement for now. When you are all dead and forgotten us young folks will take over and do what needs to be done to turn the hobby back around.

Jim - KB9YFI

[ke5wj]

Well, CW has now been bashed. Maybe someone will drag CB into this thread. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W5ATX]

Ok, let's get rid of the CW requirement. I'll support that. But you come up with an appropriate exam that will maintain ham radio as the technically oriented service it is supposed to be. Notice my post above said nothing about CW. It was all about hams who don't seem to know much about ham radio.

There's the challenge. Can you meet it?

[KB9YFI]

OK, to start I would change one rule: the current Extra exam should be the only exam for the only class of license and no CW requirement. One test for all new licenses and all renewals. Renewals will be every 2 years for everyone. The exam is updated with new technology. If you can't pass that exam then no license- not a ham go back to CB! How about that? Maybe we could ratchet up the theory a couple of notches so the extra exam is not so darn easy. How about eliminating the open public question pool or at least make the test about 200 of 100,000 randomly-selected questions to eliminate the possibility of memorization and lucky guesses? How about 80% to pass? And if you can memorize 80,000 questions then we don't need a test for you in the first place. YOUR A GENIUS! Is that hard enough for you?

Learning CW has nothing to do with intelligence and all about how your brain is set up to interpret non-natural noises in your environment. There are a lot of really stupid people out there who have learned CW. (I've met many) They programmed it into their little heads with their mother's milk. Some learn it easily with little effort. Others find it very difficult. Some find it so damndably difficult that they would rather do ANYTHING else beside learn something that they hate and KNOW they will never use. I'll get flamed for saying this but learning CW is stupid. I equate it with learning to interpret RTTY. Why? It is out-moded. It is a fringe activity. There are so many more worthwhile endeavors to spend precious time on. Life is too short to communicate at less than 40WPM. I would think the old-timers would value time since they have so little of it left. CW is not necessary to the survival of the service and it is slowly choking the hobby to a long and anemic death. Call me lazy if you want because I think that learning something as archaic as code is not a productive activity. But calling me wrong about the fact that it is killing or at least mortally weakening the hobby would be a mistake.

That is my opinion. The next 40 years will the "proof of the pudding." I'd hate to tell all the guys at the cemetery, "I told you so." Lets do something before the damage is irreversible. And we have 40 "channels" of spectrum left.

[KD7KOY]

I think this whole argument of what ham radio is supposed to be today, is centered on what it was created for decades ago, and, what time, technology and culture have evolved into. Time, culture and technology has replaced the original intent of the "service".
Ham radio was created for two reasons. foremost, a "service", in time of crisis to suppliment or replace communications, primarily in time of war (military).
Secound of course, as a hobby, to "self train" those replacements.
In WW2 for example, America found itself without skilled techs, especially in the military. Many hams entered the military and could be sent into service with little training except for familarization of military equiptment.
Today, technology has ensured that hams could not, for the most part, make that transition. The equiptment too technical, training and theory way above most amatuers heads. Technology and training taking precidence in todays military instead of numbers of operators. Equiptment today cannot be repaired in the field as it was 50 or so years ago.
Our culture has also evolved.
Radio is considered by most "average" people today for the most part, a "passe'" technology. Replaced with Television, computers, cell phones and satellite. Most people today perferring television over radio, the internet over the library, cell phone over a transceiver.
The balance of "service" and hobby, has shifted toward the "hobby". Many using ham radio for relaxation, collecting and for self interest. The service part has been, and is being replaced more and more by better government systems, better trained military and agency operators, redundant systems and ever advancing techology that most cannot keep up with, except for continuous training. Technology evolving where, what is a breakthrough today, is obsolete in 60 days.
Then there is, I believe, the "human factor". Ham radio appears to be in two camps. One camp wants the "ol days", the other reconizes the changes and wants to move on to a new course. Some take the changes as a threat. I see no "threat". I see ham radio has changed and that our mission and culture has changed. Whether that change is for the good or bad, it has already begun. Except for complaining, little can be done to change technology, culture or the "need" for our mission.
All I can do personally, is see where it go's and decide if I want to be part of that change and stay, or go on to something else.
Seeing some of the posts on this site refect that conflict.
Is ham radio going to die?..I think as an interest or hobby the answer is no.
As a "service", as written by the FCC decades ago..yes.
The world has changed and we have to change with it.

[wg7x]

This started out as a good debate, that is until it was hijacked into the endless CW vs No CW mess.

CW or no, CC&RS will affect your ability to get on the air. The original poster, even though his method is serioulsy flawed, has hit on the core of a big problem facing amatuer radio today.

Personally, I would never live in a place where the neighbors believe in their "right" to tell ME how to live. No, Thanks!

This issue affects all amateur radio operators wether you operate on HF, VHF, UHF or whatever. Any one who wishes to operate will need some sort of antenna, and antennas work better outside, in the clear.

This is simple fact, and no wishful thinking will change that. This is NOT an issue of licensing requirements. It is a simple physical fact, nothing more.

It would be good if folks would at least TRY to stay on subject with these debates.

If you have an axe to grind, start your own thread. That way, those of use who wish to stay on track will not have to suffer the endless dredging up of old, dead topics.

Boy! Talk about wishful thinking!

So, I'm an optimist... Sue me!

Gary WG7X

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wg7x @ Aug. 04 2002,14:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally, I would never live in a place where the neighbors believe in their &quot;right&quot; to tell ME how to live. No, Thanks![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is not just a amateur radio issue, but a general cancer in our society. Our wonderful government teaches people to turn each other in to the &quot;authorities&quot; for everything, as opposed to working things out as reasonable people. It is so bad in some places that if you shoot an armed intruder, in your house, in the night, and there was a path for you to retreat, you are the one who is tried as a criminal! The government wants an unarmed, unthinking, workforce of idiots who will blindly obey any edict, who will believe anything they see on TV ...

[KB9YFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GYQ @ Aug. 04 2002,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The government wants an unarmed, unthinking, workforce of idiots who will blindly obey any edict, who will believe anything they see on TV ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean everything we see on TV or read in a magazine/newspaper is not the unabashed truth? I can't believe it!

[wu3u]

You know, its funny. #I posted something about antenna restrictions and how they may result in the eventual disappearance of the home-based Amateur Radio station
and the thread ends up embroiled in a controversy over
CW and technical requirements.

KE5WJ implies that, far from being a threat to Ham Radio, antenna restrictions are actually a good thing because they act as a barrier keeping less-than-serious
candidates out of Ham Radio.

(They also make it difficult if not impossible for Hams with excellent technical skills who have a genuine, intense interest in antenna theory and design to build,
install, and experiment with antennas, but this fact seemed to have been overlooked.)

Some days it doesn't pay to get out of bed........

But before I answer the many off-topic comments made in response to my initial post, I suppose I should present my Ham Radio Pedigree to satisfy any concerns that I am a technical dunce who &quot;whines about antenna
restrictions&quot; because I either can't or don't want to use
&quot;ham radio ingenuity&quot; to get around them.

I was first licensed in 1983. #I spent two years as a Novice and CW has been my primary mode ever since.
I am proficient at speeds in excess of 35 WPM.

Ever since I was a young kid, I had and still have an intense, serious interest in radio both from a technical and operational standpoint. I did not complain about the
licensing requirements on my way to achieving my Extra
Class License as I am genuinely intrigued by the science of radio communication. # #

Over the years, I have built several transmitters and numerous kits. #I know how to solder and read a schematic. #While I am no technical genious, I have applied myself and endeavored to develop my technical
abilities as far as my innate ability would allow.

I too have operated from many less-than-optimum locations. #

In college, I bread boarded a transmatch using a coil I wound myself and capacitors pulled out of broadcast receivers I found in the trash. #My antenna was a 100 foot piece of wire end fed with tuned counterpoises running down the side of the building. I had a great signal with that set up into Europe and all over the world
and worked a lot of DX with it.

When I lived in a condo, I used a fishing rod to cast a pilot line into a large tree that was used to hoist another end fed wire aloft. #I ran a ground wire into the attic. #

When I found that this arrangement was causing too much TVI due to poor RF grounding given the physical constraints of the installation, I constructed an attic
mounted, shortened dipole using loading coils placed in the center of each leg that could be tapped to change bands. #To change bands, I had to climb into the attic and change the taps manually. #The demensions of the antenna and and loading coils were arrived at using an
antenna analyzer.

While living in WV, I had the good fortune of living on a dairy farm. #There I experimented with many antennas:
A Bobtail Curtain, several long wires, and two half waves in phase on 80 meters, the flat top being supported by tall trees.

Finally, I have endeavored to become perhaps the first
HF Mobilier to earn the 5 Band WAS Award since it was first offered in 1970 using solely mobile equipment. I am currently 3 contacts short of finishing it, about 98% QSL.
All of the contacts were made in CW at 100 Watts output, all made not more than 50 air miles apart as per WAS Rules.

SO I too have applied myself and endeavored to use the knowledge I have acquired to get on the air from difficult
locations.

But my post was NOT about my credentials as a Ham. #It was about antenna restrictions. #Why such a post would
spark a general debate about CW and licensing requirements is beyond me. #I thought that all Hams would be concerned about antenna restrictions whether they be appliance operators, technical wizards or otherwise.

Several Hams in this forum have made rather dubious statements. #

KE5WJ's implication that antenna restrictions are actually good for Ham Radio because they act as a filter keeping less technically adept people out of the hobby is, to me anyway, patently silly. #Such restrictions actually frustrate and sometimes outright prohibit
serious experimentation regarding antenna design
and propagation. # How can this be a good thing for Ham Radio?

KE5WJ and W5ATX both seem to be of the opinion that
the growth of new licenses, the vast majority of which
seem inactive as suggested by QRZ.COM callsign listings showing scant look-ups, is mostly due to
&quot;people who were convinced that Ham Radio had something for them and then discovered that it actually
requires effort and learning.&quot;

By this, I assume they mean that the inactive licenses
are overwhelmingly No-Code Techs who failed to upgrade and thus gain access to the HF spectrum.

But I should note that I found nothing to support this. #A lack of activity, reflected by the scant number of look-ups, was noted on ALL license classes up to and including Extra, not just #No-Code Techs.

I agree that there could be many reasons for the lack of inactivity but Antenna Restrictions is surely one of the factors to consider. #Indeed, the ARRL has defined CC and Rs as the most serious threat to the future of Ham Radio and sadly, I agree.

I believe that the vast majority of active Hams are elderly and have operated their stations from locations
pre-dating antenna restrictions. #When they are SK, I ask: #&quot;Where will the active Hams of tomorrow come from?,&quot; if we are precluded from erecting and experimenting with antennas?

And why should we settle for &quot;stealth&quot; installations,
the physical constraints of which often preclude good
Amateur practice in the forms of poor RF grounding, TVI, and RF exposure, not to mention than many if not most
&quot;stealth&quot; antennas fall considerably short being effective antennas from the outset?

&quot;Stealth&quot; operation also places the Amateur in a position of increased legal liability should the antenna be struck by lightning or otherwise cause personal or property injury, as such antennas often cannot be effectively grounded for lightning protection to remain &quot;stealthy.&quot;
(See QST for June, July, and August 2002 , &quot;Lightning
Protection for the Amateur Station'&quot;). #

In my estimation &quot;Stealth&quot; operation often requires cutting corners in antenna installation, measures that expose Hams to legal difficulties that may result in
unpleasent consequences in today's litigious society.
Such antennas may well embroil a Ham in a dispute with
his condo or home owners' association or lead to other legal entanglements...why should THIS be considered some beneficial right of passage into Ham Radio?

No, Ham Radio should be practiced above ground and above board. #We should not have to placed in the
uncomfortable postion of operating potentially dangerous antenna installations in a clandestine fashion,
living with the constant fear of being &quot;found out.&quot;
If we have to operate our stations &quot;underground&quot; and hidden from view, is it any wonder that the uninformed will regard such stations as having been involved in an activity that may be illegal, immoral, or dangerous when they are &quot;found out&quot;?

If we have to hide from the public, then we MUST have been doing something wrong, right?

Operating under cover of &quot;stealth&quot; also makes it impossible to responsibly solve TVI and RFI problems, as taking responsibility for solving them &quot;blows your cover.&quot;

And so we are now at that point whereby PRB 1 may be applied to CC and Rs but this measure may fall short of
providing any relief for the reasons I have outlined in my earlier post. #PRB-1 is a weak, vague legal instrument and its application to CC and Rs is likely to compound the problem as Hams will now have to satisfy the requirements of hundreds of home owners' and condo association boards regarding the meaning of &quot;reasonable accomodation.&quot;

So please, stop using the Antenna Restriction Issue as a battering ram, a weapon used to make assaults on those
who disagree with your pet theory as to why Ham Radio
may disappear, or at least as we know it today. #Antenna
Restrictions threaten the exisistence of the Amateur Service generally and all Hams should should rally to stop them.

This discussion NEVER should have become a forum for
debating the relative merits of CW over NO CW and how
we should make the tests harder or easier, for if we cannot erect antennas, these discussions are moot points
anyway, and we will have presided over the eventual disappearance of the Amateur Service due to in-fighting
and lack of consensus in the Ham Radio Community.

[K3XR]

there are so many factors dealing with the state and the future of ham radio ...it's hard to touch on them all..

you can make an argument about the need for cw...what you can not make is an argument for learning cw ...if you have a sincere desire to be a ham...if you want it #bad enough ...you will meet the requirements...or you can continue to cry about it and stump your feet...

since ham radio is a technical hobby...it is influenced by technical changes...both in and out of the hobby...i.e. psk, repeaters, sstv, etc. #a #factor out of the hobby would certainly be computers and the internet...i had an old timer tell me that if computers had been around when he got into ham radio ...he would have gone with computers...how many young people does that apply to today...

i expect there is some merit to the fact that people live in areas that prohibit antennas and that may impact on the interest in the hobby...there were plenty of cities (at least here in the east) in the late fourties and early fifties that had street after street of row homes...and had a fair share of hams...and not all people live in these &quot;all the same&quot; shoe box communities....the notion that some federal regulation is going to be the cure all for lifting antenna restrictions is a little pie in the sky....municipalites have, in the past, gone so far as to ban 2-way communications in their borders..the classic case is wb2szk in winslow twp n.j. well documented in qst in the seventies....

as far as checking qrz for look-ups and bios...sounds like a little voodoo science to me...for one thing...who has the totals on hams that own or do not own computers

dan,k3xr

[KB9YFI]

#1 Your theory that lookups on QRZ profile pages equates amateur activity is seriously flawed. #Although QRZ has many, many members it does not even come close to encompassing the majority of amateurs. #Many of the people who have high lookups on their profile pages have accumulated their numbers from being a pain in the arse on these same forum pages and not from post-QSO lookups. #The vast majority of the people registered here at QRZ rarely use the site while a tiny minority actually visits here regularly. #Lastly, on the subject, the hit counters on the personal pages were all reset not too long ago so the numbers really don't mean ANYTHING right now because they cover just an eyeblink worth of data. #

#2 When someone disagrees with your statement and theory that antenna restrictions are what is killing ham radio and instead posits a counter theory that person is not &quot;highjacking&quot; the thread. #Such reasoning reminds me of the sandlot bully who rules the neighborhood children. #This is a discussion. #Yours is not the only theory. #Be prepared for other people to rebuff your ideas and present other, better theories of their own. #Get used to it or join the priesthood where all opposition is considered heresy and those advocating alternate ideas are banished. #That's not how things work here. #I would think that a sociologist would already know that.

#3 It is not that hard to get around antenna restrictions. #Put a damn wire up in the air and tune it up. #It will work. #Just because a bunch of Socialist/Fascist pig-rapers tell you that you are not supposed to do something doesn't mean you can't just ignore them and put a little invisible wire up into the trees. #You could always load up a ladder, flagpole, or even a lightbulb and work QRP. #These things can be done quite easily and ham radio can be enjoyed and contacts can be made. #Just because you don't fill in all the blanks on some stupid award sheet doesn't mean you are failing at ham radio or not having fun. #I know a few technicians who are doing satellite work with HT's and laptops and having more fun than OF's with $10K worth of high-tech HF-gear and mega-stacked beams on a supertower. #It's all in the attitude of the individual amateur.

#4 Antenna restrictions do not hurt the hobby that much. Although they are a hurdle, compared to other things they are not the major factor in the decline of the hobby. #As it is we really can't do much as a community to fight the CC&amp;R Nazis here. #There are many other hurdles that are choking the hobby which we DO have control over. One of the easiest to remove would be the CW-barrier. #We as a world-wide community have control over this. #The people who are propping up this ancient stumbling-block are hams around the world. #Soon we will have a chance to remove the greatest thorn in our collective paws. #No other thing can so easily open up the hobby to more people and inject new life as this one issue. #Antennas are small potatoes compared to it. #Railing at the antenna issue is a waste of time right now. #It's mainly just a symptom and not the real ailment.

Jim - KB9YFI

[KG4OCV]

I'll avoid the antenna issue entirely. I don't have my e-mail or bio listed. It has nothing to do with my activity. It is simply because I don't feel like putting everything about me on the interenet. There is enough info about me out there. Too much, we seem to live in a society now where everyone thinks it's okay to disclose everything, or at lweast ask for it. It isn't okay. we need to be vigilant.

Jeff

[ke5wj]

I'm sorry you mis-interpreted my reply - I guess I didn't communicate very well. I agree that this shouldn't be a CW discussion. As you say, all modes need an antenna and that is the issue. Neither is it a discussion of credentials. We all have a ham ticket, so we all have the only credentials that matter.

I never said that CC&amp;R's are good and that they act as a barrier to keep out certain people. You must have dreamed that. I did say that I don't worry too much about them. Neither did I make any comments on CW. (Actually, I don't care whether they keep the CW testing requirement or not. It has served its purpose and if the FCC decides to trash it, so be it. I will continue to use whatever modes suit my operating, be it CW, BPSK, MFSK, Hell, MT64, SSB, SSTV, AM, FM, or whatever.)

I am not against CC&amp;R legislation. I hope it passes and everyone can erect antennas that are reasonable to them and their neighbors. I thought you were trying to say that CC&amp;R's would be the death of ham radio. If I misunderstood, please accept my sincerest apology. My point was supposed to be that CC&amp;R's won't keep me off the air or make me want to turn in my ham ticket. If it makes someone else, so be it.

As far as operating &quot;stealth&quot; or worrying about &quot;blowing my cover&quot;, I've never done that. Everyone around me knows I'm a ham and enjoy it. Tomorrow morning the other apartment residents here will most likely ask me who I talked to over the weekend. (Mostly Europeans, but a few stateside, a dozen or so on MFSK and Hell, 1 BPSK, a couple on SSB and a couple on CW.) When I travel and am in hotels, I tell the hotel receptionist I want a room on the top floor and that I'm an amateur radio operator. I take my gear with me when I travel with my US license and my IARP, passport, etc. I operate in accordance with the law and have no reason whatsoever to operate undercover. Neither would I suggest that anyone else operate undercover. If someone else wants to give away their rights by acting as if they are criminals, I feel sorry for them.

So, just to make sure you don't misunderstand me again, I am not against CC&amp;R legislation, but I don't think that CC&amp;R's will be the death of ham radio. They are an issue, more important for some people and less important for others. Anyone seriously interested in ham radio will find a way to work around CC&amp;R's, whether it is by technical ingenuity or by moving somewhere else.

[W5ATX]

Actually, N8LXR is correct. I was trying to point out a different view of what might be happening to the future of ham radio. I didn't intend it to go completely sour, and for that, I apologise.

Yes, antenna restrictions are a problem. Personally I think more can be done with &quot;marginal&quot; antennas than believed by many, since I grew up living with them. I simply learned to make the most of what I had. Technical know-how helps.

I don't know much about statistics. I do think LXR's method of measuring activity is lacking. I have lots of lookups, my email and web info and a long bio on qrz.com. And my sole activity is local repeater use. My last two times on HF were the past two Field Days. So at the opposite end, I skew the stats too.

As for CW, no, I'm really coming to recognise that it doesn't mean a whole lot. But those who feel ham radio should no longer be technically oriented are a concern to me. That's what ham radio is all about! No, I don't think it's practical for most of us to fix our own rigs anymore. Admitted, those days are over. But to think hams shouldn't know the basics? I can't abide that. Hams buy dipoles now because they don't know how to make them. N8LXRs own talk of his antenna experience is a good example. Without basic knowledge, he would have left ham radio frustrated at the start. That's what we should at least have - knowledge to keep things working. Fixing the TS-8000? No. Knowing why your antenna works or doesn't? Yes.

Enough, I give up. Going back to the repeater.

Chris

[WS5H]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YFI @ Aug. 04 2002,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ham radio is not going to die because of too low entry requirements. #If it is going to die it is because of CW. #There are enough hardships that the modern ham has to overcome but that in not enough for the Sour old Curmudgeons. #No, they have to keep ARTIFICIAL hurdles in place long after they are important or even relevant. #The number of hams that are active? #There are a number of active CW-only basement-dwellers in my area that never come out to the ham events. They never volunteer for public service events. #They sit around and bitch on 40M about how us techs are ruining ham radio. #The CW requirement is keeping a lot of new blood out of the hobby. #There are enough hurdles in trying to get an antenna up. #Enough hurdles in purchasing very expensive equipment and putting a station together that works well. #But to make the Old Farts happy they have to put artificial legal restrictions on as well because they &quot;had it hard&quot; when they were first becoming hams. #Today the government takes more than half of our money away. #Our wives have to leave the house and get jobs to make enough money these days to put food on the table for our kids. #We have to work extra hours because of stupid government regulations and taxes. #Now you want us to waste time learning an archaic binary language that 95% of hams admittedly never use? #That is just plain stupid. #That is the reason the hobby is stalling. #Be honest with yourselves. #The amateur population is aging and soon great numbers will be falling into 6-foot holes to never seen again amongst the living. #This is what will decimate the ham population. #If we continue to fail in recruiting new members in the under-60 crowd then in a few years the hobby will not die but all its members will. #I just laugh at how people can fool themselves into blaming everyone else for the problem but can't see that silly things like the CW-requirement are just killing the hobby and not letting it evolve. #So be it. #Keep the requirement for now. #When you are all dead and forgotten us young folks will take over and do what needs to be done to turn the hobby back around.

Jim - KB9YFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Jim you have a large chip on your shoulder om

David
WS5H

[k9kjm]

I can remember back to the days when the slogan &quot;America, Land of the Free&quot; was used.
Now, federal licensed amateur radio operators are not
allowed to put up antennas because the neighbors don't
like them.......... # # #tsk....... #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[KB9YFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WS5H @ Aug. 04 2002,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Jim you have a large chip on your shoulder om

David
WS5H[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I see with open eyes what the future brings and I'm not afraid to voice a solution before it is too late. Quit lying to yourselves about what the problems are and LOOK at what is happening. This chip does not lie on my shoulders alone. It is an axe that looms over the neck of the whole hobby. I'm not going to sit around and wait for it to fall. I'm doing something. If you want to wait with your head on the chopping block then that is just fine. Just don't hold the rest of us there with you.

Jim - KB9YFI

[WB2WIK]

After reading all this, it seems there are many problems, not just one, or even a few.

But some of the easiest obstacles to overcome are well within the power of those making the loudest comments to do so. XYLs who don't appreciate the beauty of antennas? Geesh. Who cares? How in the world would that impact any thinking individual? It's all about empowerment. Those who even comment that the XYL doesn't care for antennas have none. Empowerment, that is. And they must, by definition, be failures by almost any reasonable measure. Pity.

I've lived all over the country, and have never yet found the place where antennas are not allowed. There are such specific homeowner associations and common property areas, and there are restricted subdivisions and even entire communities. So, I simply choose not to live there. I'll live somewhere where such restrictions do not exist. And those places exist everywhere in the U.S.

It's not a matter of economics, because for any given regional area, I can find a place to live where the mortgage costs less than rent for an apartment. For any given regional area, I can find a home available for sale with no money down, at all. Empowerment. Either one chooses to have it, or one doesn't.

Possibly it's in the upbringing.

[KB9YFI]

It's for lack of trying to find greener pastures. Why do people live in squalid cities with overpriced cost of living and crowded conditions? They are too lazy to move out into the country where there is more freedom and less regulations. They are too addicted to their government hand-outs like water, sewer, trash pickup and snow plowing. They don't understand that they could provide these things for themselves at a much lower cost than they are paying in taxes and high costs of living. They are so addicted to their hand-outs that the thought of living for themselves makes their blood run cold. Perhaps it is UPBRINGING. They raise sheep these days in public schools not people.

Jim - KB9YFI

[wu3u]

Now the thread has gone wild again, addressing the issue of empowerment and how people are raised.

Steve/WB2WIK (how are you OM!?) and I have disagreed over the antenna restriction issue since I first became active on QRZ a few years ago. #

Steve maintains that there are plenty of properties that are CC and R free and all one has to do to become and remain an active Amateur is to find and relocate to them.
While I will not speak for Steve, it seems to me that he has agreed in other threads that nearly all NEW housing is restricted, however.

Given a country the size of the United States, its undoubtedly true that given a wide enough search and willingness to relocate, a suitable restriction-free property can be found. #

Of course, this means having to move. #It often also means having to find a new job and transfer the kids to a new school.

I believe the &quot;there are plenty of antenna-restriction free
properties just find them&quot; argument misses the point however and I ask: #Why should we have to relocate just for the right to erect antenna structures on our own properties, insofar that they do not pose an extreme environmental impact and/or safety hazard in any case?

As older housing is phased out and the invariably antenna restricted newer housing is phased in, just where will future active Hams operate from if we fail to assert our right to erect safe antenna structures complying with local building codes?

Recruitment of active Hams is important to the future of the Amateur Service if we expect to preserve it for future generations.

However, current and #future Ham Radio recruits will be/are living somewhere when the radio bug first bites. #

Often, they will already own their homes, homes that will be increasingly antenna restricted in years to come in many if not most cases should the current trend continue. #Some may be young people living with their parents who are not yet even old enough to buy a new home. #Others may decide to become Hams in their elder years and will be living in retirement developments.

For those who maintain the &quot;just find antenna restriction-free housing and move there&quot; argument I ask: #Do you think it likely that people will be willing to sell their homes just for the opportunity to become an active Ham Radio operator, a personal life decision that often means finding a new job and tranferring their children to new schools? # At what price Radio? #

And what of teenagers who live with their parents? #Or retirees who live in senior housing developments? #In most cases, neither of these will be able to relocate
after discovering an interest in Ham Radio from the outset. #

While I know that we cannot and should not try to cover every imagineable housing scenario, I still maintain that
now is the time for us to assert our right to erect safe
antenna structures on our own properites insofar as they do not pose an extreme environmental impact and comport with local building codes, period. Its certainly a lot less drastic than asking current and future Hams to sell their homes and relocate, a measure that simply erects a considerable barrier to full participation in the
Amateur Service.

My original post addressed the eventual disappearance of the home-based Amateur Radio station due to
Antenna Restrictions, notwithstanding the application of PRB 1 to CC and Rs, as I believe PRB 1 is a weak legal
instrument relying on a highly subjective interpretation of
&quot;reasonable accomodation,&quot; with the added complication
of having to make your case for the &quot;reasonableness&quot; of a particular antenna installation before condo and home owners' associations whose members will probably know nothing about radio and would most likely prefer to bar
antenna installations outright, should PRB 1 be ultimately applied to CC and Rs.

This issue was never addressed in the thread and the whole conversation became mired in the age-old Code VS
No-Code argument along with pleas to tighten the licensing requirements. #These were the factors that would lead to the eventual disappearnace of the home-based Amateur Radio station and the issue of Antenna
Restrictions really posed no threat at all, according to some of these detractors. #

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Antenna Restrictions however. #Whether you are pro-code or anti-code, whether you believe that Amateur Radio exams should be made easier or harder, the one thing common to all Hams is the need to erect effective antennas. If the current trend, whereby nearly all new housing is antenna restricted continues the future of the Amateur Service is threatened generally. #Divergent opinions regarding licensing requirements will be laid moot as the era of the home-based Amateur Radio station draws to a close. #Ham Radio may suffer an eventual death.

If we lose the battle to erect antennas on our own properties and Ham Radio eventually ceases to exist,
I believe that a major factor in its demise will be that we cannot even arrive at a consensus regarding our common interests, as this thread seems to suggest.

Some days, it doesn't pay to get out of bed........

[WB2WIK]

Hi Tim,

I'm &quot;Steve,&quot; not &quot;Jim,&quot; but I think you've got a lot of people on your mailing list!

We can surely agree to disagree on this, and no hard feelings. However, I don't think the situation is as drastic as you've made it. I certainly agree that the number of active hams probably hasn't changed in about 35 years, regardless of number of licensees, and I've told you why, and provided some data to prove the point.

And some of the &quot;inactivity&quot; is surely due to antenna restrictions. Just as bad, maybe worse, is that many hams who really are active still don't get out very well because of either real or imagined restrictions.

As for &quot;moving,&quot; this is a very personal matter, of course; however, as one who has &quot;moved&quot; sixteen times in my life, and thirteen of those times as an adult who made my own decision to &quot;move,&quot; I can say that from my perspective, it's a fun experience that I look forward to repeating several more times. I don't think that to find &quot;antenna friendly&quot; housing would ever involve moving so far, for anyone, that they'd be forced to change jobs or schools to do so. At least, that surely hasn't been my experience. I've moved, let's see, from Tarzana to West Hills to Chatsworth to Woodland Hills to Winnetka, all communities in Los Angeles -- that's five moves in 14 years -- without having to change jobs, or having my kids change school systems. My &quot;commute&quot; to the office has changed from 10 mins, to 25 mins, to 30 mins, and now back to about 7 mins (score one for The Kid!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, but has never been an inconvenience, or even an issue worth thinking about.

Ditto my experiences on the east coast, when I lived there, which was up until 1988. My last move in NJ was from Mt. Olive to W. Long Branch, and was a 60-mile move, but I kept the same job, and the same office, and the commute went from 40 mins one way, to 40 mins in a different direction. Big deal.

Would I move again, if one of my kids had an important hobby which made a 20 or 30-mile move advantageous for her? Of course I would.

It's all about empowerment. I love that word, and it's just so darned applicable, here.

73!

Steve, WB2WIK/6

[KB9YFI]

I fail to see why I have to feel sorry for any individual, ham or no, who is stupid enough to purchase a home with restrictive CC&amp;R's. They are fools, damn fools and short-sighted. They bought a home and signed away their rights. I agree with Steve that moving is not a bad idea nor an impossible task. Even if a homeowner is NOT a ham, moving away from CC&amp;R neighborhoods is a good idea. I refuse to shed one tear for these short-sighted individuals. It is their fault that CC&amp;R's are still around. It is because they did not have the balls to say, &quot;no way you NAZI!&quot; to the sellers of these properties. Now they have made their beds they can lie in them.

That said, ham radio can be done with indoor antennas. many techs get by with far less and still stay in the hobby. You don't need to fill out all the blanks in some silly WAS and WAC contests to have fun with radio. There are plenty of hams just over the horizon to QSO with a smaller indoor antenna or make decent worldwide contacts with a simple stealth dipole. Antenna restrictions are nothing compared to the band restrictions that techs have. Many techs find out that they can't talk 'round the world and give up after they can't raise anyone on their local repeaters. I'm sure more prospective amateurs are lost down this dead-end than all the other reasons combined including antenna restrictions.

Go on bitching about antenna restrictions. It is a minor problem easily solved by those with enough brains not to sign away their property rights when they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for housing. Failing that, they can use just a modicum of ingenuity to erect a usable antenna without drawing the neighbors attention. I refuse to feel sorry for such flock animals as they tromp towards the slaughterhouse.

Jim - KB9YFI

[wu3u]

Hi Steve,

Hey OM, sorry about mixing your first name up! I keep getting you and another online friend who lives in CA
mixed up!

Steve...please answer me this one question: Why should Hams be made to move at all to erect safe
antenna stuctures complying with local building codes
in principle?

I think its great that you have an adventurous spirit and have relocated 16 times in your life and look forward to doing so again and again. But yours is a very unique
outlook, an almost nomadic way of life foreign to most people, I believe.

I dare say that most people do not relish the thought of moving. I have moved several times and frankly consider it a royal pain.

The question is not about empowerment or whether one views moving as an unpleasent thing or an adventure.
Its about property rights and whether or not Hams should be allowed the right to erect safe antennas that comply with local buidling codes in any case.

Just as you have made the choice to relocate over and over, others want the same freedom to live in only a few locations over their lifetime and they should not have to choose between staying put and moving just to be let alone to erect simple antennas on their own properties,
antennas that pose no environmental or safety concerns and otherwise comport with local buidling codes.

That is my position, a position allowing people to live the nomadic life of relocating over and over or staying put in one home over a lifetime while enjoying full participation in Ham Radio in either case.

73,

Tim

[wu3u]

KB9YFI:

I will make you a deal OM...I will stop &quot;bitching about Antenna Restrictions&quot; when you stop bitching about
having to pass a 5 WPM code test!

And its a good deal too. Moving is indeed a major life decision involving money, time, and energy. All you have to do is learn how to copy code at the rate of 5 WPM, something I have taught dozens of people to do since 1983.

Just like moving, code is not that hard OM!


73

Tim

[KB9YFI]

I'll learn CW when you learn Sanskrit. I'm not going to waste my valuable time and use up limited neurons in my brain learning an outmoded, underutilized, backwards and slow language that I dislike and will never use again. It's that simple. Everyone might need an antenna but nobody &quot;needs&quot; CW. If they banned it tomorrow only a small fraction of the ham community would miss it.

Jim - KB9YFI

[ke5wj]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YFI @ Aug. 05 2002,17:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...#I'm not going to waste my valuable time and use up limited neurons in my brain ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm glad I didn't say that! It might be true, but I'm glad I didn't say it!# http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KB9YFI]

If you said that then it would be an ad-hominum attack. For me it's just an admition of limitation. Then again I admit to having sacrificed millions to the -OH solvent.

[wu3u]

KB9YFI:

The FCC does not require a knowledge of Sanskrit
to gain access to the bands below 30 MHZ, it requires
the ability to copy 5 WPM Code.

And besides, I already have my Extra so I can go no higher anyway!

That said, I do not believe that we should maintain the
code requirement despite that I am a high speed code operator. The FCC has already dropped the speed requirement to 5 WPM for all license classes.

That they continued to require code proficiency at all was for one reason: The Unitied States is bound by international treaty to require it for any license class with
priviledges below 30 MHZ. I believe it will be dropped alltogether after the next ITU Meeting, which I think is
scheduled for 2005.

SO KB9YFI: You can either learn the 5 WPM now and gain access to the bands below 30 MHZ now, or you can wait three or so years and pass a codeless General Exam
after the CW requirement is dropped. That is up to you.

In any case, learning 5 WPM Code is certainly one hell of a lot less complicated than having to move, find a new job, and transfer the kids to a new school just to be let alone to erect safe antenna structures complying with local building codes.

And you will certainly use up as much if not more &quot;limited neurons&quot; in your brain railing against my antenna restriction posts than you would learning code,
so it remains a good deal!

Go for it!

Tim

[KB9YFI]

-Already passed the General Written. Did that the day I passed the Tech. Didn't even study for it. The test was EASY. I've even looked at the Extra exam. Passed it on QRZ. Too easy as well.

-I realize that the International Treaty requires Code for HF work. I did not, however, sign that treaty. Nor did I sign the ratification of the Constitution which nowhere states the Federal Government has the power to regulate, license or segregate individuals exercising their free speech. The FCC is an illegal institution. That's a debate for other threads.

-I'll wait the 2 years for Code to be abolished as a requirement. I will not cry when it gets regulated into the twilight as the users disappear by attrition

[ke5wj]

Steve,

I pretty much agree with you, even though I must be a failure by your measure. Oh, woe is me ... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I would say it's a matter of choices and balancing different interests and responsibilities. Empowerment is just as good a word, I guess. People who choose to live in an antenna restricted area and then cry about it deserve as much sympathy as the people who buy a house in a flood plain, then cry that the government let the water rise.

I also have lived in at least a dozen places, all except 2 as an adult and by choice. As I said before, when I had restrictions, it never kept me off the air and it doesn't now. None of the houses we currently own have antenna restrictions - I checked before hand. When we move back, it won't be by accident that antennas can be erected.

I understand that some people want to live in neighborhoods without antennas. If they then get a ham ticket, well, they either live with the situation they chose or move.

73,

[WB2WIK]

Tim, your contention about antennas complying with local building codes, even in principle, still leaves the door wide open for lots of regulation. I'm with you, I don't like CC&amp;Rs, I don't like antenna (or any other) restrictions, etc. However, zoning ordinances are typically administrated by the County, or sometimes by the Municipality and the County, and can be every bit as forboding as CC&amp;Rs are. In Ventura County, CA (just north of L.A. and home to millions of people), a Conditional Use Permit is required in most places to install any type of outdoor antenna except for a low-profile TV or 18&quot; DTV dish.

The CUP application fee can be as high as $2000, and is non-refundable, whether the permit is granted or not. And many are &quot;not,&quot; because meetings are held where all the neighbors show up to protest granting the permits. PRB-1 be damned, it doesn't have much weight in many places.

Thankfully, though, it does have a lot of weight in other places, and many municipalities and counties throughout America have no, or very loose, zoning -- at least today.

Whether moving is a royal pain or not, isn't it worth a move to enjoy a better lifestyle? The main reason people move is just that, nothing more: To enjoy a better lifestyle, a larger home or one with more features. Moving for the sake of enjoyment of a hobby is the same thing, and very gratifying. I honestly don't see the big deal. If I were into boats, I'd live on a lake or on the ocean. If I were into growing vegetables, I'd live on a farm. If I were into horses, I'd live on a ranch. I'm into ham radio, so I live in a place where it's permitted, large antennas and all.

Each to his own, but I find it easier, and more personally satisfying, to simply do what needs to be done in order to enjoy the particular things that are enjoyable to me. So, it is difficult for me to understand why anyone else wouldn't do the same.

As for the &quot;code requirement&quot; stuff, don't even get me started! I love working CW and always will, it's a great mode and a very relaxing and entertaining pasttime. Those who don't use CW will never enjoy it, and that makes me feel even better that I can. I couldn't care less if it remains a requirement or not, but if not, then I'd recommend we replace it with, um, something equivalent and more modern, like possibly learning ASCII code or Beaudot. Not just &quot;using&quot; it, but being able to read and write it.

Bet then the anti-code guys will complain about that one, too.

WB2WIK/6

[wu3u]

Steve/WB2WIK:

The consensus in this area of the country seems to favor that local building codes are fairly easy to satisfy and that Hams have been able to erect towers and other antenna structures in places where no CC and Rs are in force.

I cannot say that this is true for all places in this area, however. It was true in my hometown in Southern New Jersey when I was actively a Ham there five years ago and perhaps the scenario there has changed. Further research into local zoning and building codes would have to be undertaken to provide a definitive answer to that concern.

I think you are right that whatever national premption we
arrive at safeguarding our ability to erect antenna structures will have to take into account those municipalities where local building and zoning codes are overly prohibitive. Good point.

I am certain of this, however: PRB 1 is NOT it, especially when the definition of &quot;reasonable accomodation&quot; is left to the whims of condo and home owners' associations upon the application of PRB 1 to CC and Rs. The people sitting on these boards will not be disinterested parties and virtually none will have any
knowledge of radio.

I believe that application of PRB 1to CC and Rs will only result in increased the number of legal forums within which we will have to make our cases for &quot;reasonable
accomodation,&quot; and we will witness a substantial increase in the number of court cases whereby Hams
will litigate for the ability to erect particular types of
antenna structures, a &quot;thicket&quot; if you will.

I don't have all the answers but I am of the opinion that the Ham Radio community is badly in need of a national
preemption addressing both governmental and CC and R
antenna restrictions that is straight to the point: We have the right to erect these antenna structures in the national interest and something less nebulous than
&quot;reasonable accomodation&quot; should be adopted as a guideline.

The decision of what is &quot;reasonable&quot; should not be left in the hands of private citizens sitting on condo and housing association boards who know nothing about
the value of Ham Radio to society and even less about the technical aspects of radio communication, and who are quite often, patently anti-antenna from the outset.

IF we fall short of this then I believe we will see the eventual disappearance of the home-based Amateur
Radio station by the time I am of retirement age (I am 40 now). If Ham Radio still exists at all then,
Hams will probably have to be and remain active Amateurs by joining club stations as is currently the case in many foreign countries presently.

I hope that does not happen and this is why I argue for
the Amateur's right to be let alone to erect antenna structures subject to some sort of guideline that protects that right to a greater degree than PRB 1.

73,

Tim

[wu3u]

I know I offered this earlier in the thread, but I will re-post it here for the benefit of those wondering why I am so concerned about PRB 1 and its application to CC and Rs.

This website outlines the weaknesses of PRB 1 and how it has failed in many cases to allow Amateurs to prevail in disputes with local governments when they tried to erect antenna structures&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;ANTENNAS AND THE LAW (http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/woverbeck/antregs.htm).

73 to all,

Tim
N8LXR

[W5ATX]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YFI @ Aug. 05 2002,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are plenty of hams just over the horizon to QSO with a smaller indoor antenna or make decent worldwide contacts with a simple stealth dipole. # . . . #Failing that, they can use just a modicum of ingenuity to erect a usable antenna without drawing the neighbors attention. #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The above quote is two different sentences, just so everyone understands I didn't quote Jim verbatim.

Whether anti-antenna rules will kill ham radio is yet to be seen. I tend to think not, but . . . Jim makes a couple of points that fit into my concerns about the loss of technical competence in ham radio. And please note, this has naught to do with CW!

Simple stealth dipoles take a little knowledge to tweak and make work to their full potential. I know, that's what I lived with for years as a kid. The modicum of ingenuity is another good point. And what's the problem with BOTH of those ideas? Hams today don't know how to make antennas work. Hell, they don't know how to make antennas at all!

Hello!!!! You don't need a TH6 on a tower to make contacts. You don't need a curtain array between tall telephone poles either. You DO need to know how to take some wire and MAKE it work! And today's average ham cannot or will not do that.

Yes LXR, maybe you're right. Maybe this is the problem you say it is. But I say I was able to make contacts with restrictions, and so have many others. We're losing that ability. We're losing the ability to compensate for limitations. You know, life is FULL of limitations. Human ingenuity has always gotten us through and around those limitations. But now too many hams don't know how. That is SAD!! It's PATHETIC! Do I think hams should be electrical engineers? No. But I'm not, and I sure wasn't when I was 13, living in the projects in a VERY restricted environment, but I made contacts. LOTS of them.

See my point?

No, I'm sure you don't, but . . . if we can't all have towers, we need to know how to get around it. And I fear that may be the end.

Chris

ps: I don't endorse toughening standards. I DO endorse not making them any more lax than they already are. There's a difference there. If we need to relax the standards to such a degree just to get new blood into the hobby, maybe it's not going to be a hobby we're going to want to be a part of. Ever think of that? I'm thinking 27.185 MHz.

[KB9YFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5ATX @ Aug. 05 2002,20:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ps: #I don't endorse toughening standards. #I DO endorse not making them any more lax than they already are. #There's a difference there. #If we need to relax the standards to such a degree just to get new blood into the hobby, maybe it's not going to be a hobby we're going to want to be a part of. #Ever think of that? #I'm thinking 27.185 MHz.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Today's new ham has limited resources. This is true for all hams really. One only has so many hours in the day and a finite amount of time to study and learn radio principles. I fully endorse new hams to learn as much about antennas, RF theory, electrical theory and local law and codes that limit their antenna building. Nobody has enough hours in the day free to learn all that they can or all that would really be of help to setting up a superior station. One has to pick and choose what they have time for and prioritize their study. I STRONGLY feel that saddling these hams with a MANDATE to learn code to get on HF seriously DETRACTS from more IMPORTANT study in the above areas.

Anyone who disagrees with the above need only look in the Q&amp;A area where some of the silliest questions get asked by people who overbudgeted their precious learning hours on memorizing and programming code into their heads. They would have been much better off reading the ARRL antenna handbook. This is my opinion of where the root of the problem is. If you feel that dropping the code requirement will reduce the proficiency of hams then why do a vast majority of hams never use code again after passing their tests? Wasted time learning non-essential skills. No 2 ways about it.

Jim - KB9YFI

[AC7UX]

I gotta tell you, it sure get`s old listening to no-code techs who want to change the world to suit them. we hear them say,&quot;I am smart enough to pass a general test.&quot; Okay then, the code is only 5 WPM. anybody can learn and pass a 5 WPM code test. We dont want to hear you cry anymore about the code test. If you are to lazy to learn or to stupid, then be happy with your no-code tech license and shut up! C.W. is more apart of amateur radio then the tech. license is. C.W. has been apart of amateur radio from the begining, what almost a whole century now. It`s called tradition boys. thousands of hams over the years have had to make the pilgrimage to the C.W. mecca. Sniveling now that it`s your turn makes you sound weak. Now, what was the topic? oh-yes, CC&amp;R`s, If you sign your rights away what do you expect.You spend $5ØØ,ØØ on a house and everybody owns it too? sounds like animal farm to me. Were did CC&amp;R`s start anyway, the kremlin? I gots`ta know.

[KB9YFI]

If it is getting that old listening to things you don't like to hear then turn off your computer. I'm not going to shut up. Come on over and convince me to. Learning CW is a BIG waste of time for 90% of the people who learned it and never used it again. Time wasted that could have better been spent learning how to make and put up antennas that work regardless of where they live or the restrictions put on their construction.

CC&amp;R's the most evil thing to happen to property rights. It's an evil called Collectivism. It's where people give up their own personal rights to the collective because they don't have any faith in the ability of free men to make rational choices and instead think that they need &quot;masters&quot; to tell them what to think and do. I feel sorry for them NOT ONE BIT. Anyone who signs a restrictive CC&amp;R is just as guilty of destroying their rights as those who wrote it and police it. THEY ARE FOOLS. I won't come to the aid of fools and democrats. It's against my religion.

Don't like hearing me whine? TOO BAD! I'm not going to shut up. I have a legitimate point here and it belongs in this thread. Just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the right to silence me. ONLY the moderators at the behest of the site owner have the power to silence me in this forum and until they ask me to drop it I'm going to continue to make my point in a civilized and polite matter until I either win or I die.

Tradition be damned. 200 years ago it was tradition to keep slaves. 50 years ago it was tradition to keep whites and &quot;coloreds&quot; segregated in busses, restrooms and eating establishments. Tradition means nothing to me. What is right and what works is what matters. CW is no longer helping the hobby. It is eating away at it like a cancer much more deadly than the relatively benign infection of antenna restrictions. I wish antenna restrictions would go away as I wish all government encroachment into the private property rights would cease. Antenna restrictions are but the tiny tip of the iceberg of that problem and it goes far beyond amateur radio. Hams are not going to solve that problem. It's too big. They will lucky to be around in 30 years if we keep heading in the direction we are going now. Lets worry about the real reasons for that instead. CW requirements are at the top of that list.

Jim - KB9YFI

[wu3u]

W5ATX and KB9YFI:

Gentlemen, with all due respect, I believe that your concerns regarding CW requirements and the lack of technical proficiency displayed by some Hams have been throughly addressed in this thread.

I agree with W5ATX that all Hams should possess the knowledge to build and tune simple antennas. I have
operated from condos and apartments using antennas
that I tuned with grid dip meters and antenna analyzers.

I even built one attic-mounted dipole I dubbed &quot;The
Sporty Shorty&quot; that used two variable inductors mounted in the center of each leg. This antenna covered 30, 20 and 15 meters. It was essentially a full length dipole on 15 meters and the coils were by-passed when using it on that band. On the other bands, I would climb into the attic and tap the coils to electrically lengthen the antenna and bring it into resonance.

I worked 48 states on 20 meters with that antenna and W5ATX is right, I never would have been able to build and tune it without a fundamental knowledge of antenna
theory.

However, this antenna, even though the product of Ham Radio know-how, was not without serious drawbacks.

It did cause TVI and RFI, even when a low pass filter was installed on the transmitter. The attic in which it was housed was also the route through which ALL the cable TV and telephone lines ran and I simply did not know the extent to which I may have been interfering with other people's telephones and TVs as trying to find out would have revealed that I was operating an Amateur Radio station within the confines of the condo complex.

I did get it to a point where the TVI/RFI within my own condo unit was minimal but had no idea how it was affecting other units. I even scheduled myself for &quot;quiet times,&quot; times when I believed there was a high liklihood
that others were watching TV. I operated it mostly after 10 PM at night or in the middle of the afternoon during the week when I reasoned that most of the other condo dwellers were at work, but I could never be sure that I was not causing interference.

It was an unsettling feeling to operate that way. I always felt like I was doing something wrong and lived
in fear of being &quot;found out,&quot; as opposed to operating proudly and in the open.

To me, this was no way to be an Amateur Radio Operator. I am proud of Ham Radio and what it has done for the Country and the advancement of the radio art. Operating like this made me feel like....well..a pirate.
I have since done all my hamming mobile.

I plan to buy a home soon but I wonder if, in light of
CC and Rs, things will be much different for me. I have to weigh my needs to be close to the Philadelphia job market against my desire to enjoy Ham Radio from a fixed location, along with other considerations such as cost, crime rates, and all the rest.

I do not think that CC and Rs should be the guiding principle in my choice of housing. There are more basic, important considerations that I have to take into account.

In short, I do not think, insofar as any antennas I might erect are safe and do not pose extreme environmental impact, that I should be forced to choose between Ham Radio and living where I wish and on my own property. But it may come down to that and as I say, that is a choice I should not have to make in light of silly regulations sponsored by people who simply do not want to mind their own business, as they gallop happily along regulating everything from simple antennas to the number of shrubs I can plant in my front yard.

I have addressed the CW issue and I agree with KB9YFI that it should no longer be a requirement for licensing.
I DO think that Jim should simply bite the bullet and learn the 5 WPM now instead of having to wait several years until the CW requirement is dropped after the next ITU Meeting, when it almost certainly will be dropped and the United States will no longer be encumbered by the international treaty now mandating it.

Jim, I have taught CW for years and would be happy to help you. I have yet to meet even a single student who, with modest effort and practice, cannot learn CW at a 5 WPM rate within a few months. I have even had a few students who learned it in as little as three weeks using
some of the methods I have developed over the years.
Even if you hate CW (I love it myself), learning the code
at a 5 WPM rate now will gain you access to the HF phone bands and after you've done it, you can put it away forever.

I think that simply accepting that you must pass the 5 WPM test and applying yourself for a few months is far better than waiting several years for the requirement to be dropped and more in keeping the &quot;Can-Do&quot; Amateur
spirit that has made our hobby a great American tradition. And I will help you. I will even E mail you my phone number to discuss teaching you if that is your desire.

Now all this aside, I still maintain that we should not settle for &quot;stealth&quot; operating and the Code/No Code argument is laid moot anyway if we do not forcefully assert our right to erect antenna structures free from
meddlesome CC and Rs and over zealous zoning and building codes. I further maintain that PRB 1, even if applied to CC and Rs will NOT achieve this goal, as it has failed to enable many Amateurs to erect antenna structures in the past.

One Federal judge has refered to PRB 1 as &quot;a vague Federal guideline&quot; that cannot stand up to well defined local land use regulations. Another FCC Offical has gone so far as to reccomend that PRB 1 be strengthened in light of the several adverse precedents that have arisen from its attempted enforcement by Amateurs.

I have found no evidence that it has been so stregthened and fear that when its nebulous &quot;reasonable accomodation&quot; clause is laid subject to interpretation by condo and housing association boards whose members are more often than not in favor of banning antennas outright that Ham Radio operators will find themselves caught in a legal thicket so thick that the application
of PRB 1 to CC and Rs may, ironically, work against us rather than for us, as the opportunity for adverse precedents will multiply exponentially.

Failure to secure some national preemption that strongly
asserts our right to erect antenna structures in the national interest beyond the vague confines of PRB 1
may well be Ham Radio's proverbial &quot;swan song&quot; in years to come and any concerns addressing CW or licensing requirments will have long been laid moot.

73 to all,

Tim
N8LXR

[KB1GYQ]

What I want to know, is where are the people who want to bring back spark-gap. That was a real ham tradition; and even the GOM seem to have forgotten. Lets bring HAM back to the grand tradition of it's roots, spark! Heck, they even transmitted voice with spark. Morse was only a stop-gap measure.

[KB1GYQ]

Ya know, we could always just unionize! The first rule: no emergency communication services will be provided to areas where normal radio communication is restricted.

[KB9YFI]

N8LXR, your post was eloquent and well-written. You bring up some excellent points concerning 'Pirate' emissions inside multi-family dwellings that most conceivably did cause RFI and TVI problems with innocent neighbors. I find it inconceivable to ever go back myself to living in a multi-family dwelling ever again. I would sooner live in a teepee or a van than go back but I understand that many people find them to be acceptable living quarters.

As an hypothetical owner of such a domicile I am not sure I would want to let anyone modify the structure for an outside beam unless it was done by professional installers. Load-bearing, fire-caulking of cable penetrations, wind and lighting damage liability would surely color my feelings towards such even though I am a ham myself. I would probably not have a problem with a smaller deck/porch-mounted mast and vertical screwdriver or hamstick as long as TVI problems were minimized. Such issues as loss of profit from problems arising from radio operation are something that you have to allow the business owner to prevent and avoid. What you do on your own private property is your own business as long as you don't 'pollute' your neighbors with interference.

As for privately held condo units, I can not grasp why anyone would want to own property collectively. It's disgusting to me and smacks of Socialism. Whatever- it's a choice of those who want to live that way with all the faults and problems that arise from living so.

As to learning CW. I have spent my 250 hours on it and gotten nearly nowhere. I refuse to waste any more time or effort on the endeavor. I'll wait thank you for things to take care of themselves. I'm young and have plenty of years left on this earth to operate HF after the rules change.

Jim - KB9YFI

[n0xas]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GYQ @ Aug. 05 2002,22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya know, we could always just unionize! The first rule: no emergency communication services will be provided to areas where normal radio communication is restricted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Boy, people would sure notice that. Well, a few dozen would, anyway. Once in a while. Maybe. Of course the press would make hams look like a bunch of extortionists.

Unionize? Hell, only a fifth of licensed hams even joined ARRL, I don't think the Teamsters will get too far even if Hoffa gets an Extra ticket. It'd be like trying to herd cats.

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n0xas @ Aug. 06 2002,00<!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB1GYQ @ Aug. 05 2002,22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya know, we could always just unionize! The first rule: no emergency communication services will be provided to areas where normal radio communication is restricted.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Boy, people would sure notice that. #Well, a few dozen would, anyway. #Once in a while. #Maybe. #Of course the press would make hams look like a bunch of extortionists.

Unionize? #Hell, only a fifth of licensed hams even joined ARRL, I don't think the Teamsters will get too far even if Hoffa gets an Extra ticket. #It'd be like trying to herd cats.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So, we should work to protect those who do not want us around!? I think not! It is not extortion to not go where you are not welcome! It is extortion to try to extract the very services that they would not otherwise permit.

Besides, this is an issue of &quot;fatherland security&quot;! Amateur radio must be permitted, so that is can serve the greater good.

[w0dz]

Although N8LXR's analysis methods may have been crude, his results are not far off. In the Fall, 1971 Callbook, there were 285K licensees, of which 200K were &quot;HF-ready&quot; (Conditional or Higher, excluding Novices, Techs, clubs and military). Since demands on our time were not high, I'd guess that 90% of the HF-ready hams were active. So let's say that 180K hams were on the HF bands on a regular basis.

Today, there are almost 700K hams, but fully half are Novices, Techs and Tech Plusses. That leaves 350K HF-ready hams. Since there are a lot more demands on our time today, and more choices for things to do, let's say that only 50% of those hams are active. Judging from the lack of people on the bands, that percentage may be high. That makes fewer than 175K active hams using the HF bands.

In short - no growth in HF ham radio in 31 years other than replacing our dead.

CC&amp;R's are a hindrance to new hams. Most of you have forgotten about the kid who wants to become a ham but whose parents moved into a CC&amp;R neighborhood long before their child showed an interest in ham radio. How could they know he or she would want to do this? In 1966 when I became a ham, my dad got sued by the developer, who said my 35 foot tower and 3-el beam was in violation of the deed restrictions. We won, but it cost $2000 to fight it. And I had the help of K7UGA (Barry Goldwater) operators! Today I'm sure the cost would be much higher. Whose parents will tolerate that today?

There's a good analysis of the decline in most hobbies today in a large book entitled &quot;Bowling Alone&quot;. Ham radio is not the only hobby or group that is suffering. People today are just not joiners. It's a cultural change that is hard to understand. It doesn't bode well for a hobby in which Elmering, friendly competition and club activity is so important.

I'm a long time CW user, and I love it. But I don't begrudge the many hams who don't want to learn it. I don't consider it a rite of passage. I do, however, draw the line at people who want to use ham radio as a cheap cellphone and/or a better form of CB. Growth is necessary to keep the hobby vibrant. We need new hams. But we don't need people who aren't going to contribute anything.

The question is, how do we make sure new ham wannabes want to be &quot;true&quot; hams? I submit that merely going through the hassle of taking the test weeds out most of the riff-raff. Go back 30 years and re-read the letters column in QST. We were complaining even back then about all the nastyness on 80. Not even a 13 WPM code test stopped them. Society has gotten even ruder since then, and a certain percentage of hams have followed suit. We can't stop the insanity. But just having a test, even if it's simple, helps while we wait for our civilization to come to its senses.

Finally, instead of complaining, go DO something! Write your Congressman or Senator. Join a club and get involved in their activities. Most importantly, quit sitting at your computer complaining and GET ON THE AIR!! (A couple days ago, W1AW was booming in on 15 at 7 PM. They were the only ones on the band, so I called CQ. After 3 tries, I got an answer from a Florida ham, and we gave each other a 599. The band was wide open and no one was on!)

[wu3u]

I certainly regret suggesting that my &quot;analysis&quot; of QRZ.COM's callsign database was anything approaching a scientifc study. It wasn't and I believe I made that
distinction in my original post.

Part of the reason why I looked up all those callsigns is because I am Webmaster for the NJ QSO Party and we were building a E mail database of NJ Hams. #We sent the resulting list personal inviations to join us in NJQP.

Making it into a truely scientific representative sample
of the US Ham Radio population would require a 10% random sampling of all US licensees and a lot of statistical controls and further research into the
&quot;sample frame&quot; which, in this case, is the QRZ.COM
database itself. #

A well thought out rationale as to why the number of lookups assigned to each callsign should be considered as indicative of on-air activity (which would have to be defined and quantified) would have to made and any alternate variables impacting the number of lookups would have to isolated and handicapped....on and on.

And I still would probably end up right back to where my intuition as Ham led me in the first place! #About 15 to 20 percent of the licensees in the entire license pool are on HF to some degree of regularity (again, for this to be a scientific sample, the word &quot;active&quot; would have to be defined and the &quot;levels&quot; quantified) and despite that we have more licensees than ever, &quot;activity&quot; has remained flat but again, strictly from an intuitive standpoint.

It would be an even bigger chore to show statistically
that activity levels are impacted by antenna restrictions. #This would require a full blown research model defining and quantifying ALL the major variables that one contends cause activity to be higher or lower and showing statisically the extent to which antenna
restrictions impact the dependant variable &quot;activity levels.&quot; #

I am not even sure that this could be achieved using the QRZ.COM database solely as the sample frame. #In most cases like this, social scientists would prefer to rely on carefully worded questionnaires sent to a 10% random sampling of all Ham Radio licensees regarding their on-air activity and here again, you would be at the mercy of whether or not the questionnaires would be returned, assuming you used snail mail. #If you used only E mail, the sample may suffer from &quot;skewing&quot; as not all Hams have internet access but some sort of statistical method could be implemented to control for it.

But a 10% sample of ALL Ham Radio Licensees in the US amounts to nearly 70 thousand individual measurements
of each Ham Radio operator's activity! Depending on your questionnaire return rate, you would in all likelihood have to administer substantially more questionnares to arrive at a valid representative sample. #It's not as easy as it sounds, now is it? #LOL.

For now I will rely on my intuition and most Hams in this forum seem to agree from their on-air experience that
15 to 20% HF &quot;activity&quot; out of the entire license pool is a reasonable, however unscientific estimate.

This contention is strictly anecdotal on anyone's part short of a scientific statistical analysis but is a good starting point for discussion.

73!

Tim
N8LXR

[Phineas]

Get rid of code(CW) now, then what next?

&quot;I should not have to learn any electronics theory when all I have to do I buy a radio, push a button and talk.&quot;

Either you want the privilage or you dont. I agree that CW seems to be more of a traditional thing, however where do you draw the line? I personally see no difference in learning code than I do learning about Impedence, or ohms law. I run into people with college degrees that tell me they would have a problem memorizing P=ExI to pass a test. There is always going to be something that most people are not willing to do as far as hobbies are concern. As it already stands, as a new ham, only 1 out of 20 Extra class people knew anything about matching networks. But they passed the test. Go figure. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Personal computers are a great example of a hobby that is drasticly dumbed down. Once, you had to know how to make your serial cable, know what baud rate meant, know what terminal emulation you had to use, type ATDT to dial the modem, and know online commands once you connected. If you wanted your computer to do something, you had to know how to do some sort of programming. This among other things kept TRUE hobbiest in the realm of computers, and kept others out. Now marketing people have turned the computer into an appliance, and now anyone can turn on a computer and use it. People still complain about how hard a computer is to use...lol.

Phineas
KC0LSC

[WB2WIK]

There's plenty of justification for making entry requirements more, not less, difficult, using any screening method, including CW. Knowledge of, and demonstrating how to use, international code is a good screening mechanism that's been successfully used worldwide for nearly 100 years. Not bad.

No one needs a license or a training course to buy a tank of oxygen at the local welding supply shop, but of course could use it to make a bomb that would blow up a city block. Purposefully, or otherwise.

No one needs a license or a training course to use a gas oven, a barbecue grill or many other household items, all of which can be terribly harmful not only to the user but also to innocent passersby or neighbors.

Where do we draw the line? The amateur bands are a limited resource, and hams have been &quot;grandfathered&quot; use privileges based on experiments our forefathers performed nine and ten decades ago. Without those forefathers, ham radio wouldn't exist, and &quot;we&quot; would have no spectrum privileges at all. I wonder how those forefathers would feel if they knew that the requirement for learning and using international code was being diminished? Maybe like our Founding Fathers (of America) would feel if they knew it was okay to burn the flag?

WB2WIK/6

[wu3u]

Since the thread is completely off the subject of antenna restrictions anyway, I will add my two cents worth regarding CW proficiency as a licensing requirement.

I am a high speed code operator. #Still, I agree that CW should no longer be required to obtain an Amateur Radio
license.

In the early days of radio when the CW requirement was
implemented as a central factor in granting a license, it was the THE mode of operation. #Even after phone modes
became more common after the Second World War, CW remained the primary mode of emission for several decades.

To participate in Amateur Radio, and thereby be able to serve the public in time of War and domestic emergencies (the main reason why Ham Radio was established and sanctioned by the Federal Government), a Ham Radio operator simply had to be a proficient CW operator to be of any value to the Amateur Service in that regard out of necessity. #

CW was THE mode in the early days of Ham Radio and remained the primary mode even after the advent of
phone modes fpr a long time.

However today, advancing technology has made possible modes like PSK 31, RTTY, SSTV, FM and SSB. # CW is now ONE of the possible modes through which an Amateur Radio operator might serve the public in time of WAR or domestic emergencies, but it is no longer THE mode. #

One can even make the argument that in times of pressing need, CW would not normally be used in any event, as the newer modes are faster and do not require special training to use, at least in terms of using the mode itself. # The special training needed to use a mode like FM, RTTY, or PSK 31 is presumably tested in the written theory exams as only electronic knowledge is
needed to dicipher them, assuming that the operator understands the human language component of the transmitted message.

So if an Amateur Radio operator can provide services
to the public without having ANY knowledge of CW, and thereby justify the granting of his license using modern
modes of emission, it does seem rather unfair to require proficiency in CW as a central factor in licensing. #CW today, while a wonderful mode that I enjoy using, is nonetheless a specialty mode and no longer the central
mode used in radio transmission.

Bear in mind that I say this even though I am primarily
a high speed CW operator proficient at speeds in excess of 35 WPM. #I am hardly &quot;anti-code.&quot; #But I do agree
that it should no longer be one of the major qualifying factors in testing for the reasons I have outlined.

73

Tim
N8LXR

[WA6CAW]

I'm almost a founding forefather, novice in 1952, 50 years ago. Code was useful then, not now.
I can get a code reader from MFJ, and a code converter from my typing on the computer. New technology keeps outdating old technology. Does that make old better than new? Or is new better than old?

I still think we need a digital Morse code format, because digital communications gets through better than AM, and CW. Now that should start an argument!

Anyway………..

I have a slash “Ø” capability on my computer. Not real hard to do……

KØBOG, Chuck Skolaut, ARRL Field Observer
KAØYSP, Elizabeth, older daughter
NØTIK, Wife
NØUAK, Angie, younger daughter
WAØNHS , Dennis, brother

Just some ARRL news for you!.

Cul,
WA6CAW

[WB2WIK]

Well, the argument &quot;for&quot; CW is still a fairly strong one...

-Unless the next WARC precipitates a change, code proficiency remains an international requirement for licensing operators to use the HF spectrum.

-Every digital mode requires some electrical operator interface; a computer, PDA, some accessory automatically required. Not just a rig and an operator. This is probably the most compelling argument for its usefulness in an emergency. I can carry a CW transceiver built into a tuna can, along with a 9v battery to operate it, and a small coil of wire for an antenna. I can touch two wires together to make a key, and I can copy pages of text in my head, without a notebook or a pencil. I cannot similarly carry a PSK31 setup -- yet. When the requirement for operating digital modes is shrunken into a 6-ounce transceiver and such items are commonly available, then the compelling argument for CW is certainly diminished.

WB2WIK/6

[wu3u]

Perhaps someone who is very knowledgeable about
emergency comminications can tell us:

Is CW being used to any great extent in disaster relief
communications on the Ham Bands?

I have only been involved in one major emergency situation whereby I was called to offer services to the public, a flash flood in WV back in 1991 that killed many people and required several days of clean up detail along with search and rescue operations.

I helped to pass traffic using only FM repeaters from my home station and no one was using CW at all, as I recall.

I did volunteer for disaster relief communications duty at the World Trade Center back on 9/11 and was placed on a stand by list but never activated.

I am just wondering if anyone knows if CW was used during the World Trade Center Attack relief communications effort or any major public emergency.

73

Tim
N8LXR

[WB2WIK]

Hi Tim, I'd hope CW is not used in any &quot;major public emergency,&quot; as such should draw the attention of larger-scale and more efficient services.

However in many &quot;small scale&quot; emergencies, CW is used all the time. Only last month a small boat owner wiped out on rocks up near Santa Rosa Island, CA (about an hour from me) and his marine radiotelephone evidently ceased to function using voice transmission. But, the owner was a retired Navy shipboard operator and knew Morse...he used his PTT to key the transmitter, gave his location and was rescued. He probably wouldn't have died, since he was almost ashore and had a life jacket, but the rescue certainly was accelerated by his use of code.

I read similar stories all the time in the sailing/yachtsman publications, and occasionally in the military digests. Haven't heard about any &quot;major public emergencies&quot; using CW lately....although it was used for the Titanic rescue, hi hi. And a whole lot during WW1, WW2, Korea and even Vietnam. Not much since then, that I can recall.

WB2WIK/6

[KB9YFI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2WIK @ Aug. 06 2002,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how those forefathers would feel if they knew that the requirement for learning and using international code was being diminished? #Maybe like our Founding Fathers (of America) would feel if they knew it was okay to burn the flag?

WB2WIK/6[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean it is not ok to burn the flag? I do it all the time. Show me where it says I can't legally burn a flag and I'll buy you lunch at the Marxist Diner.

Jim - KB9YFI

[ke5wj]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YFI @ Aug. 06 2002,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2WIK @ Aug. 06 2002,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder how those forefathers would feel if they knew that the requirement for learning and using international code was being diminished? #Maybe like our Founding Fathers (of America) would feel if they knew it was okay to burn the flag?

WB2WIK/6[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You mean it is not ok to burn the flag? #I do it all the time. #Show me where it says I can't legally burn a flag and I'll buy you lunch at the Marxist Diner.

Jim - KB9YFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course it's OK to burn the flag. That, according to protocol, is the specified way to destroy one - by burning - not shredding or tossing into the trash or whatever.

Remember, the founding fathers burned their flag (British) and would have been really naive to think that no one else would have thought of doing that. I'll give them a little more credit that that!

I love CW, as well as other modes. However, the founding fathers of ham radio were on the cutting edge of their technology at the time. I think they'd be horrified to find out that CW was still in extensive use other than for emergency or pleasure. I think they'd ask why we hadn't come up with anything better over the years.

I think they'd feel about like I would if my kids had come home from school with a program on punch cards or if an engineer showed up for work with a slide rule. I'd ask them how long they'd been asleep!

73,

[KB1GYQ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke5wj @ Aug. 06 2002,20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... a program on punch cards ...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow, punched cards! How modern! What happened to plug boards, or even solder?

[WB2WIK]

Ironically, or maybe not, you can actually ask some of the founding fathers of ham radio how they really do feel, since a few of them are still alive.

As for flag-burning, I never said flags weren't to be burned. I think the patriots who fought for our country's liberties probably would not be happy about people burning our flag as a public, unpatriotic act, not to dispose of old ones. Unfortunately, none of them are alive, so I've no one to ask.

Technology advancement is no substitute for minimalism when it comes to portable emergency equipment. It can be, but it hasn't been, yet. I'd like to see the PSK31, or any digital mode, transceiver/modem/terminal combination that fits in a shirt pocket, has self-contained power, and can be deployed to make contacts on a moment's notice. I look forward to the day that's possible, but so far, it is not. CW is the only mode that currently -- still, after 100 years -- is capable of fitting this particular need.

There's no question it will be obsoleted, one day. That day hasn't arrived, yet.

On a similar subject, amateur exams require demonstration of some knowledge of Ohm's Law. How is that relevant to today's plug &amp; play world? It really isn't. It's &quot;background information&quot; that may someday help. Just like knowing code is background information that may someday help save someone's life.

WB2WIK/6

[KB1GYQ]

Perhaps &quot;how to ride a horse&quot; should be on a drivers license test too.... might need that some time, you never know.

[WB2WIK]

Driver's license testing is a cruel joke, most everywhere, which explains the incredibly high number of accidents, including fatal ones. I am certainly in favor of a far more rigorous test process, one which includes proper performance of high-speed evasive maneuvers, and one which 95% of all applicants would fail the first few times.

Last year, one ham electrocuted himself while installing an antenna on his roof (it hit a power line), another fell to his death from a tower...and so it goes. You can't legislate stupidity, but you can enforce educational requirements via examination. Those who resist this by speaking of horses will see only one end of the horse when they view themselves in a mirror.

[KB1GYQ]

Why not just test IQ before birth and abort those too stupid to learn?

People need to face the consequences of their own stupidity, not pass the buck to &quot;Uncle Sam&quot;, and cry for protection.

[WB2WIK]

See what you started, Tim (LXR)? It started out with CC&amp;Rs and evolved into IQ testing.

Well, I guess it's all related, somehow...

[WA6CAW]

CC&amp; R’s, and I.Q....... kinda a oxy-moron………….

CW is not necessary to communicate today, whether in an emergency situation or for a past time. It is fun, somewhat covert (to people that can not copy), stimulating, entertaining to others (non-hams) and a practiced skill similar to playing the piano, or typing. If you don’t keep practicing, you will lose it.

But back to communications, cw ain’t needed. When technology has already progressed to the products like you can find at this link……

http://www.wherify.com/

which is a personal locator, GPS receiver, pager, 911 responder, and watch, all in one.
Eventually you will see a cellphone on a necklace. The ability to put a complete cellphone on a chip is being accomplished right now.

All battery operated devices will replace electrically operated devices when the big one( bomb or earthquake) hits, and tapping on pipes, like at the miners emergency in PA, or flashlight code can be used. It can be used by anyone, whether they know code or not. Lighthouses were the simplest form of code…………

No, I don’t buy it WIK/2, code has passed its usefulness, TODAY. #Just like slide rules, you don’t throw them away, they are still here for back up, and need to be practiced occasionally. Thus the OES drills, EAS simulations, and AMBER alerts.

Technical smarts is not out of date though, and should be tested to a higher level in learning to operate amateur radio, and possessing a license to operate. Code does not prove any knowledge, just a skill learned through practice.

I’m more for higher, knowledge based, license levels like super extra, and extremely advanced knowledge levels. These levels of licensing would require mathematical skills, like calculus, and computer code writing, similar to C++ and PERL.

But I’m an old codger, and don’t seem to be able to keep up with the times………….
What do I know? # Eh?

[wu3u]

Well yes, I sure do Steve.

The thread has become bogged down in practically everything and anything the Ham Radio community views as ailing our hobby and #society at-large: #The age old and long settled CW/No CW debate, the difficulty or lack thereof in Ham Radio licensing, personal empowerment, how people are raised, whether moving is enjoyable or an adventure, driver testing, and now even flag burning have been included in the ever-widening scope of a discussion about antenna restrictions. #Oh boy....

How we arrived at flag burning after beginning at antenna restictions will remain a mystery to me, but I think this discussion, if representative of Amateur Radio operators generally, demonstrates our greatest weakness
and one of the main factors that will have led to the eventual disappearance of the home-based Amateur Radio station and possibly Ham Radio itself: We cannot even agree that a fundatmental threat to Ham Radio in the form of Antenna Restrictions warrants strong resistance to thier implementation within our ranks.

Instead of agreeing that CC and Rs pose a fundamental threat to Amateur Radio and seeking aggressive solutions to stop the trend whereby nearly all new housing is Antenna Restricted, discussions on the subject degrade into disagreement on practicaly everything else one views as bad for Ham Radio.

The anti-antenna crowd certainly will have little reisistance to legislating us out of existence since we are a divided, contentious group fighting among ourselves while failing to forcefully assert our common perogative to erect antenna structures. #The one thing ALL hams need is an antenna yet we remain content
to in-fight over CW and even flag burning. #&quot;Nero
Fiddles while Rome Burns.&quot;

Application of PRB 1 to CC and Rs is NOT the solution
for reasons I have offered in my earlier posts. #Ironically it may work against us. #See my earlier posts.

Ask yourselves this: #Of the total housing supply in 1970,
what percentage of homes were antenna restricted, and
what is the percentage of CC and R encumbered properties today? #And should that trend continue at the same or nearly the same rate, what percentage of available properties will feature antenna restrictions in 2010, 2020, or 2025?

Steve, if the trend continues, I believe that not even someone with a willingness to move, expendable income, and an adventurous attitude toward relocating will find it easy to buy a property allowing even modest antennas. #

The trend will have surely choked off new blood into the Amateur Service, as increasing numbers of people will be living in antenna restricted locations upon discovering an interest in Ham Radio from the outset. #Asking them to move, assuming that antenna restriction-free properties will be readily available anywhere, solely for the opportunity to become and remain an active Amateur Radio operator is not a practical solution.

I reiterate: #The Ham Radio community needs a no-nonsense piece of legislation forcefully and aggresively
asserting our perogative to erect antenna structures where they pose no safety or enviromental hazards beyond the nebulous confines of PRB 1.

Lets stop the age old arguments about everything and anything we feel is bad about Ham Radio and work for a an effective solution allowing us to erect safe antenna structures that do not pose extreme environmental impact. For if CC and Rs continue to proliferate, Ham Radio will have long been regulated out of existence and all these philosophical squabbles will have prevented us from taking firm actions that may have prevented our eventual disappearnce from the American landscape.

73

Tim
N8LXR

[WB2WIK]

Tim, I view CC&amp;Rs as dangerous, in general, and most of that has nothing to do with ham radio. So, although I agree with you in general, when it comes to specifics, my judgment is that all the legislation in the world providing reasonable accommodation for amateur radio antennas would be the tip of the iceberg.

The real problem is that Americans, and probably others, are all too willing to accept regulation even when there's absolutely no need for regulation. Instead of toughening up driving tests, where lives are obviously at stake for not having done so, we legislate antennas...and what color our homes may be painted...and how tall our rosebushes are permitted to grow. All things which will never create life and death situations.

While we may not immediately stop CC&amp;Rs from being written, we can immediately stop buying such properties. We have that much power. If everybody stops buying them, they'll go away. Simple as that.

As for the number of antenna-friendly homes being a diminishing resource which may eventually disappear altogether, that's probably