IP: Ham radios in the aftermath of 11 Sep 2001 (Murnane, R-21.68): [risks] Risks Digest 21.70

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:06:04 -0400
> From: Jack Decker <jack () novagate com>
> Subject: Re: Ham radios in the aftermath of 11 Sep 2001 (Murnane, R-21.68)
>
> With all due respect to Mr. Jonz and Mr. Collinsworth, the problems that
> amateur radio operators are having with government officials are, in my
> opinion, largely a product of their own attitudes.  Those who promote Linux
> and other alternative operating systems could take a lesson from this as
> well.
>
> Not too many years ago, there was a requirement that was considered
> absolutely essential for getting into ham radio: That you know Morse code at
> 5 words per minute.  That may not seem like a huge obstacle (particularly to
> those who found it easy) but in a way it's like playing the piano - some
> people pick it up naturally and can "play it by ear", some struggle with it
> but do well enough to get by (IF they have sufficient motivation), and some
> are completely tone deaf - no matter how they try, it just doesn't make
> sense to them.  The amateur radio community has steadfastly refused to
> acknowledge that the latter group could even possibly exist.
>
> But what was worse was the attitude of many hams whenever someone advocated
> dropping the code requirement.  Their attitude was that the code acted as a
> "lid filter" which kept the "undesirables" (read: former CB radio operators)
> out of ham radio.
>
> The result of this was that there were many kids like myself, who had the
> interest and knowledge of electronics back in the 60's and 70's, but who
> found the code an insurmountable barrier.  Having been this excluded from
> the exclusive group of those who could "pound brass", we found it hard to
> figure out why we should care what happens to ham radio in the future.  We
> moved on to other things, like computers and the Internet.
>
> Then a little over a decade ago, U.P.S. (the folks who deliver packages
> using brown trucks) petitioned for some 2-meter frequencies that were carved
> right out of the ham bands.  A lot of hams were so arrogant that they
> thought there wasn't a chance that the FCC would give away any of their
> precious spectrum to a commercial interest.  Well, they got a rude
> awakening, and suddenly decided that perhaps it would be in their best
> interest to allow folks into certain classes of amateur radio without the
> code requirement, although even that did not happen without a lot of
> "kicking and screaming" by the older hams.
>
> But even then, they reserved the higher classes of amateur licenses - the
> ones that had access to frequencies capable of spanning long distances - for
> those that could decipher Morse Code at a higher rate of speed.  Even though
> some hams (and potential hams) had absolutely zero desire to communicate
> using Morse Code, the requirement was still forced upon them by the "old
> guard".  Wouldn't want any former C.B.'ers communicating with people
> overseas, you know!
>
> Well, guess what - that generation that the hams snubbed is the generation
> that's now holding political offices.  Many of those who know enough about
> amateur radio that they are not voting out of total ignorance, also know
> that they were welcomed on CB and told to go study the Morse Code (already a
> dying form of communication) by the hams.
>
> I see the same type of struggle happening today in the Linux community,
> between those who feel that Linux should be made as easy to use as Windows,
> and those who feel that people ought not to even be allowed to own a
> computer unless they know how to use the command line interface (I've even
> seen a few Linux folks suggest that computer users should be
> licensed!). Fortunately, since the use of Linux is not licensed by any
> government, vendors can make their own decisions as to how much
> user-friendliness to incorporate into the product.
>
> The risk is that if you set up something, be it a hobby or a computer
> operating system, in such a way that it appears that you are making it
> *deliberately* harder to learn than it needs to be, some folks either cannot
> or will not make the effort, and those are lost opportunities for making
> friends.  And it's also something that could come back to bite you in the
> butt, should those of the "excluded" class ever reach positions of power.
>
> Personally, I have good friends who are ham radio operators and yet I still
> find it difficult to have much sympathy for the plight of hams as expressed
> by Mr. Jonz and Mr. Collinsworth.  From where I sit, the hams (or at least
> their predecessors in the hobby) brought much of it on themselves.
>
> Jack Decker


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/