Plus -

I still have and use paper charts right next to my GPS fed computer with
charting software.

Which is all located at my nav station where I keep my sextent that I enjoy
using whenever I am offshore. It is good to be able to verify that the GPS
is working ok!

A little of the new, a little of the old.


"Gerald" wrote in message
...
Lew -

I find myself on both sides of this debate.

On the one hand ... Eliminate the code requirement ---

* I agree that perhaps the time for CW TESTING has passed. Not the use of
CW mind you, just the testing. Not the use of CW mind you, just the
testing. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as
intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile. CW is still
quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting.
It will be a popular mode for awhile.As the last generation of Hams who
"had to " learn CW fade away -- perhaps CW will start to wind down too
because not enough people are being introduced to this mode. But that will
because of "the will of the people" not some silly FCC regulation.

*The CW requirement is being dropped in most other jurisdictions in the
world --- not that they are any smarter than we are --- but it clearly is
the trend.

* If I am to be true to my generally conservative beliefs, then the
requirement probably should go. The government should not be using its
regulatory powers to control our hobbies in this manner. Band allocations
yes, emission types - perhaps --- to insure there is no RF anarchy.
Beyond that --- butt out my life.

On the other hand -- keep the code requirements -- AKA no change.

*I believe the argument that code should be dropped because it is killing
the hobby is, at best, specious. I am not at all convinced that dropping
CW is going to breath and great amounts of life into the hobby. NO-CODE
licenses have been available for years. No great influx of young hams in
the VHF/UHF bands.

*From listening to the no-code debate for years, I am convinced that most
(not all) people who want to drop the code requirement because they want
the HF privileges, but they don't want to bother to learn the code. There
is no deep concern for the future of ham radio hidden in there anywhere;
Just the increasingly popular "I want..." but "I don't want to...". I
want a lot of money, but I don't want to work too hard. I want a nice
car, but I don't want to get a job". I want access to Winlink200 for free
email while cruising, but I don't want to learn the code. I don't think
that is a sufficient reason to change the requirement.


Today, kids have so much to pick from. Their communications options are
amazing (compared to 50 years ago --- hell, compared to 10 years ago!)
cell phone voice, cell phone IM, email, internet IM, chatrooms,
websites... Back in the old days those of us who were classified as
"geeks" turned to electronics and ham radio as a way to express our
geekiness. Today, the geeky kids turn to robotics and/or programming.
Count the number of websites devoted to building robotics VS the number
devoted to building RF stuff. Worthy of note --- not much of that
communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11
of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell
phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire
country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... But, it just where the
excitement is right now. I think that is the biggest challenge to Ham
radio's future

If the genesis of ham radio was one of insuring that the country had a
good standby supply of communications technicians available during times
of war (WW1 / WW2 ??) then the history of CW knowledge is very obvious.
That national defense requirements are no longer the same. Now, there may
be a legitimate Homeland Defense, Emergency Readiness need to have back up
(or supplemental) communications in the hands of a larger number of
trained and organized citizens. Ham participation in the aftermath of
Hurricanes, in the aftermath of 9-11, in the aftermath of the next
natural/terrorist disaster may be reasons for the FCC to want to Keep Ham
radio alive. I think that having a good base of ham operators can be a
good thing for the country --- but only if they are ON THE AIR practicing
their various communications specialties.

I am starting to ramble...

To summarize, I am firmly on the fence with conservative tendencies
leaning to - less regulation is better regulation.


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Gerald" wrote:

If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the
hobby have to change to accommodate you?

Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive.

Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood
attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts
are gone.

Lew