Steve Mendelsohn's letter

[k4sb at avana.net]

Aren't we missing the point here? ARRLs flat membership ( based on their QST
circulation data which includes other than members ) represents about 20% of the
US ham population. It appears to me that fault lies with the ARRL, because I 
simply don't believe that the other 80% ( all of them ) are as notoriously cheap
as the rest of us.

Considering their ad prices, subscription rates, and the "What in the world do I
need to belong to the ARRL for because I just want to talk on 2 meters" from the
Teckies...it's no wonder.

And just how does the ARRL justify representing the US with such a minority. What 
is needed is another organization which could gather more members, and simply vote
the ARRL out.

Don't know much about the Kenwood profit or loss ( but keep in mind that about
90% of JA Corps. show a loss on their income tax EVERY year....and this includes
Toyota, Niesson, and quite a few more. ) I do know that when a Repair center has
to order a part, the price of the part is based on the Yen vs the US dollar for 
that particular day, or a minimum price which was established when the Yen was
really up. In other words, you pay premium prices, and if the figures justify it,
a premium on a floating basis.

I've been a life member since it cost $125 dollars, but they're going to make a
profit on me if no code or ridiculously low code becomes a reality. I'll cancel
the sucker.

Best to all

Ed 
-------------------------------------
Name: ed sleight
E-mail: k4sb at avana.net
Date: 06/25/96
Time: 18:30:46

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------



>From AssaraR at utrc.utc.com (Assarabowski, Richard)  Tue Jun 25 18:46:00 1996
From: AssaraR at utrc.utc.com (Assarabowski, Richard) (Assarabowski, Richard)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 13:46:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: FD & the generation gap
Message-ID: <31D02658 at msgate.res.utc.com>


Since many of us participate in Field Day with various clubs (not 
necessarily contest-oriented), it would be interesting to hear about your 
experiences regarding enticing hams into contesting and CW.  Maybe it ll 
open up some ideas toward making CW and contesting more interesting among 
newcomers.

For the last several years I ve been recruited by the Meriden ARC (W1NRG) 
for their prime-time CW operating spot, in their annual fight for top 
position in 1A (QRP).  You have to operate CW almost 100% to win this 
category.  This year was no different, except that I brought my 12 year old 
son who s obviously been exposed to ham radio, CW and contesting at home 
(including two Squints under his belt), but has never been "pushed" into the 
hobby.

We pulled into the site around 6 PM (after all stations have been set up). 
 On the right is the HF CW station, with code blaring away from the speaker, 
and a bunch of obvious OT ers (judging by the grayness of their hair) 
huddled in the tent.  Their calls are all in the K1, W1 or WA1 callsign 
blocks.  On the opposite end of the open field (a **beautiful** 
top-of-the-hill contest site) is a trailer with a big 6m beam, a 2m beam, an 
Oscar antenna and other funny-looking antennas in the sky.  My son wanders 
off in that direction and I follow him.  As we approach the trailer a couple 
of young kids introduce themselves to my son (N1xxx callsign block).  One s 
13 and the other is 14.  They show my son inside the trailer.  A kid at the 
6m station is calling CQ, another kid is tuning the 2m station, while in the 
other end is a satellite station with a colorful world map on the monitor. 
 My son immediately focuses on that.  The operator (obviously waiting for a 
pass) goes into a lengthy discourse on satellite communication for the next 
15 minutes, explaining what the circles mean, the different satellites that 
one can hear, and showing their orbits and footprints on the computer 
screen.  My son is awed.  People crowd around the trailer outside.  It turns 
out there s a waiting line for operating VHF and everyone s anxious to get 
their chance.

I take my position in the CW tent on the other side of the field and start 
my stint.  For the next couple of hours, hardly anyone walks in, except for 
an occasional OT er.  A couple of kids poke their heads in and look around, 
but walk out indifferently.  I later take a break and decide to do some 
market analysis of my own.  I ask the kids in the VHF trailer if they like 
CW, and the answer is a resounding "NO!".  I ask why, they say it s too hard 
and not enough fun.  Case closed.

My son hangs around the VHF trailer all evening while I operate in the HF 
tent.  During another break he tells me excitedly that he found out you 
don t have to know CW to get a license!  I try (again) to explain why CW is 
fun, but it falls on deaf ears.  His standard reply is that it s too hard to 
learn.

It doesn t take long to realize that CW needs some serious marketing if it s 
going to stay around much longer.  It s not "cool".  My favorite analogy is 
to compare CW with sailing.  The commercial viability of sailboats for 
transportation disappeared a long time ago, yet sailing is still a 
passionate sport for those who put in the effort to learn it.  If you don t, 
you buy a motorboat.  To each his own.  A motorboat is obviously faster and 
more efficient for going places and to be on time, but so what?

Somehow, the fun and excitement of CW, especially for contesting, doesn t 
seem to be catching on.  But nobody (including myself) went out of their way 
this last weekend to show these kids what it was all about.  We were all to 
busy enjoying ourselves, not realizing that we weren t introducing those 
young hams to this aspect of our hobby, which we all grew up on and love so 
much.  The generation gap was never any bigger at this Field Day.

My son s been reading an old faded copy an ARRL introduction to ham radio 
since we got home.  He wants to get his no-code ticket.  The code is "too 
hard", even though he s known half of the alphabet since he was six.  I m 
still trying to explain to a 12-year old that CW is fun 

                         -- Rich K1CC
                             assarar at utrc.utc.com


>From kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins)  Tue Jun 25 19:32:05 1996
From: kl7y at alaska.net (Dan Robbins) (Dan Robbins)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:32:05 -0800
Subject: No code
Message-ID: <9606251832.AB12916 at alaska.net>

First off, I'm not a great aficianodo of CW.  I have friends who just love
CW, but I don't.  I don't hate CW, either.  Rather it is a tool, a way to
make QSOs.  For that it works very well, so I use CW a lot.  In a contest I
fell much more competitive on the low bands when using CW, for example.  I
find busting DX pileups is generally easier when I use my CW tool as opposed
to my SSB tool.  The other day I saw some carpenters building a house.  They
were all using these fancy nail guns, shooting nails at a pretty good clip.
Still, from time to time, they resorted to a plain old hammer.  I mean with
all these high-tech nail guns, one might think there is no reason for a
carpenter to learn to swing a plain old hammer.  But sometimes that hammer
is the right tool for the job, exactly the same way CW is the right tool for
some situations.  You wouldn't license a carpenter who didn't know how to
swing a hammer, why would you license a ham on HF if he didn't know CW?  CW
is an operating tool for HF and there is no excuse not to learn it, none.

Let me look at this another way.  Back when I was nearly 16 years old, I had
to take a driver's education course.  The most difficult thing in the course
was learning to parallel park.  We students thought it was stupid - our
small town had only diagonal parking in its tiny business section.  There
was just no need to learn how to parallel park.  The instructors refused to
listen.  Eventually I learned how and passed the course.  Three years later
found me going to college in Chicago and guess what - parallel parking on
campus!  Then I was glad I had learned that skill.  So now we have a similar
situation - Morse Code is too hard, we'll never use it anyway say the ham
radio students and wannabees.  Let's hope the mentors and rule makers in
this hobby don't listen.  Can you think of any other examples where the
newcomers and wannabees dictate the rules?  There is a great wealth of
experience and knowledge in this hobby, and a large majority of those
blessed with that experience and knowledge feel that a working knowledge of
CW should be mandatory for anyone operating on HF.  The fact that there is
serious discussion of dropping the CW requirement is a sad reflection of the
dumbing down of our society.  Who knows when you might just have to parallel
park?

                                Dan KL7Y   


>From ni6t at scruznet.com (Garry Shapiro)  Wed Jun 26 03:23:01 1996
From: ni6t at scruznet.com (Garry Shapiro) (Garry Shapiro)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 19:23:01 -0700
Subject: No code and new hams
References: <960624133158_141712041 at emout15.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <31D09F05.1E26 at scruznet.com>

K7LXC at aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 96-06-24 11:54:33 EDT, you write:
> 
> >THE OLD HAMS HAVE FAILED TO ACULTURATE THE NEW HAMS.
> >
> >Old hams (smoked or plain) simply must put in more time helping new hams
> >and wanna-be hams into the culture of hamming--i.e., teach the LORE of ham
> >radio, the mystery, the fun, and HOW TO OPERATE on HF with ease.  I don't
> >care if a ham knows Morse code or not so long as he/she can responsibly
> >operate his/her rig.
> >
> Charlie --
> 
>      I agree.  The multi-faceted charms and challenges of amateur radio
> aren't obvious to the layperson. SOMEONE has to tell and show them on a
> one-to-one basis.  Great contest operators were mentored by people like K4VX,
> et al.  Look at the posts recently about how Field Day played a key role in
> developing this interest and mentoring for many of us.
> 
>       I'm not particularly hung up on WHO the new ham is or what he/she is
> interested in.  As long as they are part of the amateur community, I welcome
> them.  This talk about dilution of the amateur ranks to me smacks of elitism
> and "we've always done it this way" thinking.  What we've done in the past
> isn't necessarily going to work now or in the future.  Nor is it going to
> save our hobby from decline.
> 
>     I also applaud anyone who puts his money where his mouth is and actually
> does something about it rather than just griping about it.
> 
> 73,  Steve  K7LXC

Hi Steve!

You and Charlie are on the right track, but you must care what the new ham is interested in, and 
take a role in exposing him/her to aspects otherwise too easily blown off.

The bad news is that we won't ever reach all the no-code people. We live in a culture and time 
where too many expect instant gratification--mastery of new skills requires commitment and hard 
work, whether that skill is CW or the art of building effective antennas or an efficient station. 
Many of the folks who have entered via the no-code route are unwilling to pay those dues. And so 
it was with the original Novice license--many failed to upgrade.

The good news is that this is no different from any other worthwhile human endeavor. 

The world has indeed changed, in that radio is now only one way among many to communicate over 
distance. But while our sport has changed, the excitement, the wonder and the joy of 
accomplishment are still very much there. People no longer use horses for motive power and 
mainline transportation, but for those who love horses, they are things of beauty and sources of 
satisfaction.

I see CW in much the same way. It may no longer be the oxygen of ham radio, but those of us who 
have attained some skill, it is the elixir and the nectar---the porto fino. Never has SSB 
provided me the sheer joy of operating that CW routinely gives. What a tragedy if this wonderful 
mode is lost! But it is up to us, in this new era, to carry the torch and pass it on. If the joy 
of CW is not actively communicated to the uninitiated, one cannot expect them to be spontaneously 
infused with it.

Does that mean that my/our passion for CW should be "forced" upon new hams who have no intention 
to share this interest, by continuing the CW requirements in the licensing structure? Sure, why 
not! Here are some reasons:

	* What IS the big deal about mastering a mighty 5 wpm at the novice/tech level? One can 
drink a beer between characters at that speed!

	* So 13 wpm is "hard"? Perhaps it is, but what is the value of obtaining something that 
is "easy"? CB fills that bill! Are we renting a video or are we mastering a new skill? Must we 
always cater to the slothful and unmotivated? And when was the last time there was a real code 
test given? The current multiple-choice test arguably is not a code test, but a test about the 
code. 

	* Why require a CW test of operators who never intend to operate CW? If they have never 
operated CW, how do they KNOW they will never operate CW? It reminds me of a friend--a Ph.D. in 
mathematics--with whom I once had dinner in a seafood restaurant. I suggested he try the clams. 
"I hate clams," he said. "Did you ever eat any?" I asked. "No," he replied. "Why not?" I asked. 
"Because I hate clams," he said. Circular reasoning, to be sure. None of us was born operating 
CW, but how nice to have mastered it well enough to love it. And, because I view it as part of 
the radio operator's essential skill set, I do not consider promotion of CW to be elitism.

I was never one who opposed the Tech-Light license. The hobby needed an infusion of new 
operators. I recognized the risk that a horde of shack-on-a-belt operators would eventually 
become a powerful political force within the hobby, but I thought--or hoped--that enough of these 
could be weaned to "real food" to perpetuate the 
HF/DXing/contesting/experimenting/homebrewing/mountaintopping heart of the hobby. I still believe 
it is possible--but that it cannot happen without the active mentoring of those already on the 
inside. Worse, without such mentoring, the codeless hordes will inevitably shape the hobby to 
their own limited vision of what radio is--VHF/UHF FM. We see it happening now.

Elitism implies exclusion. But we must distinguish between exclusion and differentiation. 
Promotion of achievement, rewarded by privileges, is not exclusion.

My DX club traditionally required new applicants to have already demonstrated accomplishment in 
DXing by having achieved DXCC level. That worked for decades, but now the membership is 
ancient--the average age is 68--and few applicants are young. This past year, we introduced--some 
would say re-introduced--associate membership, which required only an interest in DXing. This was 
more than an administrative tactic--it moved the orientation from elitism (skill already 
demonstrated) to mentoring (assisting skill development). We are also instituting a mentoring 
program: we intend to go forth into the general ham community to promote, encourage and teach 
DXing--and contesting.

The message is loud and clear--we cannot sit on our butts and complain about the direction the 
hobby is taking--that is for the old and embittered. We must take an active role in moving it in 
the desired direction.

73,
Garry, NI6T

-- 
 Famous quotes #1233:
        "It's not MY fault"--- San Andreas

>From wws at renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector)  Tue Jun 25 05:35:33 1996
From: wws at renaissance.cray.com (Walter Spector) (Walter Spector)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:35:33 +0800
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <9606251935.AA15428 at raphael.cray.com>

> Don't know much about the Kenwood profit or loss ( but keep in mind that about
> 90% of JA Corps. show a loss on their income tax EVERY year....and this includes
> Toyota, Niesson, and quite a few more. )

Creative accounting....

Where did the '15% loss' quote come from?  Was it computed as:

	1. Revenue - cost of goods sold = loss?

	2. Revenue95 compared to Revenue94?

How did exchange rates factor into these numbers?

Were warranty costs higher than anticipated for the year?

Kenwood introduced several new models in 1995.  What percentage of
the R+D costs were 'dumped' into the first year of production?  (And
as I recall, the revenue for said products would not have been realized
until very late in the year due to availability...)

Did Icom and Yaesu gain market share at Kenwood's expense?

Shouldn't a manufacturer of HF radio expect leaner years when sunspots
are low?

And what is the impact of restrictive CC+Rs in new housing developments
on HF radio in general?

Thinking about it, it probably takes 5 HT customers to create the same
revenue as 1 HF customer.  Perhaps the no-code tech didn't produce the
expected bonanza?  Should national policy be modified to help a few
offshore manufacturers in a niche market?

Personally I think that anyone who doesn't want to get into amateur
radio 'because I don't want to learn CW' isn't really interested in
the first place.  I've known people who have gotten their no-code
tech, bought an HT, and used it exactly twice.  Would it be any different
with a no-code HF license?  I doubt it.  Other communications mechnanisms,
be they CB, Part 15 (49 mhz), cell, Internet, etc., are more useful to
most US consumers.

I'd bet that with a no-code HF license, the bonanza for HF equipment
manufacturers would last only briefly in the US.  Then it would be
buisness as usual - following the sunspot cycle.  I would imagine that
3rd world countries (poor communication infrastructure, no CC+Rs) are
where the growth market is.  At least we'd start to see CB-like prices
on ham gear...

Walt kk6nr

P.S., I also predict the number of US licensees will drop over the next
few years.  This due to a one-time effect of the 10-year license
renewal cycle - which was initiated in the early '80s.

>From w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths)  Tue Jun 25 20:36:05 1996
From: w7ni at teleport.com (Stan Griffiths) (Stan Griffiths)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Steve Mendelsohn's letter
Message-ID: <199606251936.MAA27495 at desiree.teleport.com>

>>Ham radio needs to continue to hold out rewards to those who are willing to
>>invest the time and effort to earn them.
>>It is pretty clear to me that people don't value what they haven't earned,
>>and I'll never be convinced that any written test is a substitute for the
>>"language requirement" which (language) Morse code is.  Why do we suppose
>>universities used to (and some still do) require foreign language
>>proficiency for matriculation?  Not just so one can carry on conversations
>>in Latin, mind you.  It's the discipline - the mental work of learning a new
>>language that is its own reward.
>
>Once again, I agree.  Especially with the "don't value what they haven't
>earned" part.  Any attempt to lower requirements to push no-coders into HF
>is guaranteed to backfire.

>>People do not value that which they do not "pay for".
>
>Amen.

I bascially agree with the concept that "free stuff is not perceived as
valuable" and easy testing to get licensed  probably means the licensees
will have little repsect for ham radio and act accordingly.

My problem is the concept that Morse code AND NOTHING ELSE must be used to
make a new licensee work hard to get his license.  I am not even convinced
that learning a "language" is the only way to instill a sense of value into
someone seeking a degree or license.  Surely there are other ways to do it
that should be acceptable to both those of us who love the code and those
who don't.  I agree we need harder tests and more stringent requirements to
maintain quality among our ranks.  I just don't think Morse code HAS to be a
mandatory part of the program.

Stan  w7ni at teleport.com

PS

It's a stretch to call this thread "contest related".