code/no code survey
Kevin Muenzler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
-Although I subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic, I in no way believe
-the US Government should be imposing it upon anyone. Our
-government was *founded* on the principles that those sorts of
-beliefs were an individual choice and not a government mandate.
-Fortunately that is still mostly the case today.
-As to whether Morse is too old or too much work, what a lot of
-nonsense. Its age is irrelevant and as most of the people lobbying
-in this forum have past these hurdles, the amount of work
<snip>
-The needs that established the Morse requirement no longer
-exist.
-
-73,
-Todd
-N9MWB
How does the CW requirement impose any work-ethic on anyone?
As your driver's license (sniped) analogy tried to point out
there are certain requirements for any "license" whether it
be a driver's license, hunting license or Amateur Radio license.
There are certain minimum standards, physical or mental,
to most everything. The CW requirement for HF privileges is
simply a requirement not a work-ethic. If your analogy holds
then CW should have been dropped when amateur operators were
first allowed phone operation since it was "no longer required"
to communicate. Required or not for "today's" communication
CW is required as a minimum standard for an HF license. Is it
a hurtle? Yes, for those who don't wish to take the time to
learn it, if only for the test. For those who wish to
maintain the high standards it is only a test element. For
those who want to weaken the standards it is a burden or it
is irrelevant. Just as the State of Texas requires teaching
a driver to drive in the show (simulated) may seem
irrelevant for San Antonio, about every 10 years it does
snow in San Antonio. I know this analogy has little to do
with the CW requirement but it does go to show that some
requirements may seem stupid and irrelevant on the surface.
Kevin, WB5RUE
wb5...@amsat.org
Todd Little
In article <199605211803...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>
Kevin Muenzler <wb5...@amsat.org> wrote:
> lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
>
> -Although I subscribe to the Protestant Work Ethic, I in no way believe
> -the US Government should be imposing it upon anyone. Our
> -government was *founded* on the principles that those sorts of
> -beliefs were an individual choice and not a government mandate.
> -Fortunately that is still mostly the case today.
>
> How does the CW requirement impose any work-ethic on anyone?
You brought work ethic, not me. Several (perhaps many?) in this
newsgroup have suggested that Morse be required because
it shows effort and that you should be rewarded for your
efforts. Personally I believe you should be rewarded for
working smarter, not harder. But that's a topic for another
day.
> As your driver's license (sniped) analogy tried to point out
> there are certain requirements for any "license" whether it
> be a driver's license, hunting license or Amateur Radio license.
> There are certain minimum standards, physical or mental,
> to most everything.
And those requirements can be directly related back to needs.
Drivers licenses include an operational test because of the
need for a government to protect its citizens from an
inexperienced driver. Real property and lives are at
stake. The same can be said of most (all?) licensing requirements
for licenses that require an examination.
> The CW requirement for HF privileges is simply a requirement not a work-ethic.
See previous posters that feel work in and of itself is a worthwhile
licensing requirement and object to the fact that some people can
earn licenses without the effort it took them to do the same.
>If your analogy holds
> then CW should have been dropped when amateur operators were
> first allowed phone operation since it was "no longer required"
> to communicate.
Please find where I said about dropping something because it
was "no longer required" to communicate? What I said was that
the need no longer exists. The need was never to ensure someone
could operate Morse code when it was the only mode as such
a requirement would be completely redundant. If you couldn't
operate the only available mode, you couldn't operate, so why
test for it? I suspect the reasons for the Morse requirement (although
someone will have to find an actual reference as I've been unable to find
anything other than persuasive arguments) stems from any of
several reasons:
1) Need for trained Morse ops to ensure a pool of trained ops for
the military services.
2) Need for other services that only operated Morse to be able
to tell an amateur (that was probably using homebrew and
potentially questionable quality transmitters) to fix an interference
problem.
3) Need to monitor airwaves for distress traffic.
Certainly none of those needs exist today as no other service
is using Morse. If you have some other plausible legitimate
needs that may have originated the Morse requirement, I'd
love to hear it.
> Required or not for "today's" communication
> CW is required as a minimum standard for an HF license. Is it
> a hurtle? Yes, for those who don't wish to take the time to
> learn it, if only for the test.
Where in any legislation does the government state it is in the
business of establishing "hurdles"?
> For those who wish to
> maintain the high standards it is only a test element.
By that logic we should place a Model T at each driver's
examination station and require someone be able to start
it in order to "maintain the high standards".
> For those who want to weaken the standards it is a burden or it
> is irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to anyone as it is irrelevant to safe and responsible
operation of an amateur radio station.
> Just as the State of Texas requires teaching
> a driver to drive in the show (simulated) may seem
> irrelevant for San Antonio, about every 10 years it does
> snow in San Antonio. I know this analogy has little to do
> with the CW requirement but it does go to show that some
> requirements may seem stupid and irrelevant on the surface.
It also compares a potentially life saving skill with what? Explain
what risk another amateur or the general public is in if we
don't require operators to learn Morse before obtaining a license
that grants HF privileges? Phone privileges at that!
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Kevin Muenzler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
-Please find where I said about dropping something because it
-was "no longer required" to communicate? What I said was that
-the need no longer exists.
What's the difference? No longer required, no longer needed?
If you need something then it is required, right? I do suppose
that if something is required it does not necessarily mean that
it is "needed."
-The need was never to ensure someone
-could operate Morse code when it was the only mode as such
-a requirement would be completely redundant.
-...I've been unable to find anything (other than persuasive
-arguments) stems from any of several reasons: <sniped>
The following is taken from The International Regulations Affecting
the Amateur Service --
Section 9.12. ...in 1994 the IARU CW Ad Hoc Committee concluded that
it [Morse] remains essential for radio amateurs using the bands below
30 MHz to be able to intercommunicate without regard to equipment
or language barriers, to ensure the orderly shared use of a limited
resource. This committee found that "[a]t the present time, the Morse
code is the only practical means of ensuring that all amateur stations
possess this capability for intercommunication."
This is the reason that the IARU gives for keeping the
requirement for CW when it comes to an HF Amateur Radio license.
<snip>
-73,
-Todd
-N9MWB
Kevin, WB5RUE
wb5...@amsat.org
Todd Little
In article <199605221105...@babyblue.cs.yale.edu>
Kevin Muenzler <wb5...@amsat.org> wrote:
> lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
>
> -Please find where I said about dropping something because it
> -was "no longer required" to communicate? What I said was that
> -the need no longer exists.
> What's the difference? No longer required, no longer needed?
> If you need something then it is required, right? I do suppose
> that if something is required it does not necessarily mean that
> it is "needed."
The difference is that I said the need for the requirement no longer
exists based upon what I've heard given as the need. You turned
around and said " that Morse was no longer needed to communicate"
which is unrelated to what I posted. Morse hasn't been needed to
communicate in decades, but that wasn't the need I was referring
to, i.e. "able to communicate".
> -...I've been unable to find anything (other than persuasive
> -arguments) stems from any of several reasons: <sniped>
>
> The following is taken from The International Regulations Affecting
> the Amateur Service --
>
> Section 9.12. ...in 1994 the IARU CW Ad Hoc Committee concluded that
> it [Morse] remains essential for radio amateurs using the bands below
> 30 MHz to be able to intercommunicate without regard to equipment
> or language barriers, to ensure the orderly shared use of a limited
> resource. This committee found that "[a]t the present time, the Morse
> code is the only practical means of ensuring that all amateur stations
> possess this capability for intercommunication."
The above is from a discussion paper from the FASC (Future of the Amateur
Service Committee) of the IARU. It is *not* from the International Regulations
Affecting Amateur Service. I was hoping for a ruling body's (as opposed
to advisory body's) written view on the requirement. Especially as it
relates to the initial adoption of the requirement.
Personally I find the CW Ad Hoc Committee's reasoning weak at best
as 1) there are many modes available to amateurs and no requirement
that they be able to *use* Morse Code, i.e., be in possession of equipment
capable of operating OOK Morse Code, and 2) that Morse is a practical
means of ensuring intercommuncation as it is only a character set encoding
and not a language. If they really want to ensure intercommunication,
then force the knowledge of an international language or language subset.
Please no arguments that all Morse ops understand "TU I CFM UR
MSG" as those are not required by Morse Code, the ITU regulations, and
are clearly just English language abbreviations. The same is true for Q codes
as they are not required by Morse Code or the ITU regulations.
If intercommunication is really required in a diverse mode and language
environment, then the ITU should establish band plans that ensure
operators will be using the same mode (so they can demodulate the
other stations transmissions) and establish some form of common
language or signals that stations can use to ensure orderly shared use.
The networking people of the world figured this out a long time ago,
clearly amateurs could follow a well established lead.
Nonetheless, thank you for the reference.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Bill Sohl
Kevin Muenzler <wb5...@amsat.org> wrote:
>How does the CW requirement impose any work-ethic on anyone?
>As your driver's license (sniped) analogy tried to point out
>there are certain requirements for any "license" whether it
>be a driver's license, hunting license or Amateur Radio license.
>There are certain minimum standards, physical or mental,
>to most everything. The CW requirement for HF privileges is
>simply a requirement not a work-ethic. If your analogy holds
>then CW should have been dropped when amateur operators were
>first allowed phone operation since it was "no longer required"
>to communicate.
Not so, as the minimum standards in the contemporary radio
communications arena up until a few years ago did, in fact,
still include reliance on CW. But even when you go back
to the 1960s, I can tell you that the US Navy had already
moved most of its communications to RTTY as opposed to
CW. I was an Electonic Technician for almost 4 years
on the USS Huntington (a destroyer) and the radiomen only
used CW occasionally as part of their drill practices. Official
communicatins were totally RTTY on an encrypted basis.
> Required or not for "today's" communication
>CW is required as a minimum standard for an HF license. Is it
>a hurtle? Yes, for those who don't wish to take the time to
>learn it, if only for the test.
The minimum requirement for HF is not, however, 13wpm
or 20 wpm, but rather something akin to our 5wpm test
element.
>For those who wish to
>maintain the high standards it is only a test element. For
>those who want to weaken the standards it is a burden or it
>is irrelevant.
From my perspective, it is like watching an expert play
golf...I fully appreciate the skill but I see no need for
everyone to learn the game. Same is true for people
who drive manual gearbox automobiles. No one is
forced to learn or take the driving test on a manual
gearbox, but anyone can choose to learn it on
their own based on personal motivation. So far, the
major auto makers still sell a good percent of manual
gearbox autos without anyone being forced to
learn how to drive them.
> Just as the State of Texas requires teaching
>a driver to drive in the show (simulated) may seem
>irrelevant for San Antonio, about every 10 years it does
>snow in San Antonio.
I'll assume that should have been snow.
> I know this analogy has little to do
>with the CW requirement but it does go to show that some
>requirements may seem stupid and irrelevant on the surface.
But when it does snow in San Antonio, then EVERYONE that
is driving that day must contend with the situation. The need for
everyone to use CW on any one day or in any one area
is non existent. Ironically, here in the northeast, no one
must pass any special testing (simulated or otherwise) in
order to get their drivers license. In fact, if it snows here,
they don't give drivers tests.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Bill Sohl
Kevin Muenzler <wb5...@amsat.org> wrote:
>lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
>-Please find where I said about dropping something because it
>-was "no longer required" to communicate? What I said was that
>-the need no longer exists.
>What's the difference? No longer required, no longer needed?
>If you need something then it is required, right? I do suppose
>that if something is required it does not necessarily mean that
>it is "needed."
>-The need was never to ensure someone
>-could operate Morse code when it was the only mode as such
>-a requirement would be completely redundant.
>-...I've been unable to find anything (other than persuasive
>-arguments) stems from any of several reasons: <sniped>
>The following is taken from The International Regulations Affecting
>the Amateur Service --
>Section 9.12. ...in 1994 the IARU CW Ad Hoc Committee concluded that
>it [Morse] remains essential for radio amateurs using the bands below
>30 MHz to be able to intercommunicate without regard to equipment
>or language barriers, to ensure the orderly shared use of a limited
>resource. This committee found that "[a]t the present time, the Morse
>code is the only practical means of ensuring that all amateur stations
>possess this capability for intercommunication."
>This is the reason that the IARU gives for keeping the
>requirement for CW when it comes to an HF Amateur Radio license.
><snip>
Shame shame, with that little snip you attempt to totally
reverse the actual IARU recommendation. Here's the current
version in full:
9.12. Turning now to S25.5 (RR 2735), in 1994 the IARU CW Ad Hoc
Committee concluded
that it remains essential for radio amateurs using the bands below 30
MHz to be able to
intercommunicate without regard to equipment or language barriers, to
ensure the orderly shared
use of a limited resource. This committee found that "[a]t the present
time, the Morse code is the
only practical means of ensuring that all amateur stations possess
this capability for
intercommunication." However, the committee "...does not rule out the
possibility that future
technical developments may provide an alternative means for ensuring
that amateur stations can
intercommunicate, and that these new means could become sufficiently
universal to obviate the
present requirement. Neither is the possibility ruled out, that as the
spectrum requirements of other
HF radio services diminish, there may be the possibility for
sufficient expansion to the frequency
band allocations to the Amateur Service, so that the need to retain
the RR 2735 requirement would become less compelling."
9.13. If we could assess the desirability of retaining the provisions
of S25.5 solely on the basis of
amateur service requirements in 1996, we might well conclude that
little has changed since 1994
and the provision, therefore, should be retained. However, this is not
the case. World
Radiocommunication Conference agendas are very crowded. There is talk
of certain items now
scheduled for consideration at WRC-97 being dropped from that agenda
for lack of time. It is
unrealistic to expect that Article S25, having been placed on the
agenda for WRC-99, will again
be reviewed at another conference in the foreseeable future. Any
changes to Article S25 that may
be desirable in the next decade or two, must be considered now.
9.14. On that basis, the Committee has concluded that S25.5 should be
removed as a treaty obligation of administrations.
---------------
Jim Kehler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
<big snip....>
>If intercommunication is really required in a diverse mode and language
>environment, then the ITU should establish band plans that ensure
>operators will be using the same mode (so they can demodulate the
>other stations transmissions) and establish some form of common
>language or signals that stations can use to ensure orderly shared use.
>The networking people of the world figured this out a long time ago,
>clearly amateurs could follow a well established lead.
>Nonetheless, thank you for the reference.
>73,
>Todd
>N9MWB
Todd, that's a great idea. I don't know why you didn't think of
it sooner. Drop the international CW requirment, and make the
'common language' requirement ENGLISH. That way Drew and
all his buddies won't have to learn anything, we can just force
the rest of the world to learn ENGLISH. Better yet, how about
we make the 'common language' requirement KLINGON. That
would probably really make the hobby balloon, as there must
be millions of people world wide who would love to talk to
someone on the radio in KLINGON. And again, no problem for
Drew - as much of a space cadet as he is, he probably is
fluent in Klingon already....
And you're right about the network thing too. I'm sure there is
a router or bridge somewhere up in Tokyo that changes all
this UseNet stuff into Japanese so everybody up there can
read it too.
73, Jim KH2D
Todd Little
In article <4o1voq$j...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
> lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>
> <big snip....>
>
>>If intercommunication is really required in a diverse mode and language
>>environment, then the ITU should establish band plans that ensure
>>operators will be using the same mode (so they can demodulate the
>>other stations transmissions) and establish some form of common
>>language or signals that stations can use to ensure orderly shared use.
>>The networking people of the world figured this out a long time ago,
>>clearly amateurs could follow a well established lead.
> Todd, that's a great idea. I don't know why you didn't think of
> it sooner. Drop the international CW requirment, and make the
> 'common language' requirement ENGLISH.
Oh I forgot, you must be one of the individuals that believes Morse
is a language. I'm sure Samuel Morse himself would be amazed
to hear that.
> That way Drew and
> all his buddies won't have to learn anything, we can just force
> the rest of the world to learn ENGLISH. Better yet, how about
> we make the 'common language' requirement KLINGON. That
> would probably really make the hobby balloon, as there must
> be millions of people world wide who would love to talk to
> someone on the radio in KLINGON. And again, no problem for
> Drew - as much of a space cadet as he is, he probably is
> fluent in Klingon already....
Well he appears to have as much knowledge about communications
as you do based upon your post.
> And you're right about the network thing too. I'm sure there is
> a router or bridge somewhere up in Tokyo that changes all
> this UseNet stuff into Japanese so everybody up there can
> read it too.
Ahhh... I see. Using the Morse character set allows intercommunication
between people that speak different languages but using ASCII
doesn't. Is that why we need this "network thing"? What the
networking folks of the world figured out was that a common language
or set of signals is needed to coordinate communications. I guess when
you became an extra they were still using spark as I thought some
modern communications knowledge was required on Elements
4A and 4B. I don't seem to recall suggesting "ENGLISH" or any other
spoken language as being the common language or signals. Those
routers in Japan seem to have no trouble understanding IP. In fact,
the routers in Guam don't appear to have trouble understanding it.
Wow, and it's not ENGLISH either.
The IARU CW Ad Hoc Committee in all its wonderfulness (were you
a member?) seems to have forgotten that the closest amateur
equivalent to a common language or common set of signals, i.e., Q codes
and "standard Morse abbreviations", aren't required knowledge
in the ITU regulations. So how they make the leap from a common
character set to intercommunications is *really* amazing. In fact, I don't
believe the ITU regulation states International Morse Code. So by this
Ad Hoc Committee's apparent logic, I should be able to read, write,
and understand Japanese or Russian if they're encoded in some form
of Morse Code. And I thought learning Japanese or Russian was going to
require learning a new alphabet and a new language. Now I see why
everyone is ranting and raving about Morse Code.
Also, last time I checked, a common modulation technique was also
needed to intercommunicate. But I guess that automatic packet station
on 14.105 MHz will still be able to intercommunicate via Morse when
someone sends it "pse qsy". After all, Morse is universal and all powerful.
I think I even saw an ad for it to clean your floors. ;-)
73,
Todd
N9MWB
WB5RUE
In article <4o0ik2$l...@jupiter.planet.net>, bill...@planet.net (Bill
Sohl) writes:
>Subject: Re: code/no code survey
>From: bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl)
>Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 02:31:51 GMT
>
>Kevin Muenzler <wb5...@amsat.org> wrote:
>
>Shame shame, with that little snip you attempt to totally
>reverse the actual IARU recommendation. Here's the current
>version in full:
Completely unintentional.....
Kevin
Cecil Moore
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>Todd, that's a great idea. I don't know why you didn't think of
>it sooner. Drop the international CW requirment, and make the
>'common language' requirement ENGLISH.
Hi Jim, I know your posting was supposed to be funny and someone
has said this before. Morse code is not a language. The common
basis for Morse communications is a symbol chart consisting of
English characters. These exact same characters can be sent using
any other mode so Morse code has no advantage over any other mode.
Two people who don't speak the same language can simply utter the
alphabetic short forms or send them over Amtor, etc. The short
forms are alphabetic, they are not Morse code. Morse code uses
the short forms but so can any other mode.
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC (not speaking for my employer)
John L. Broughton
I haven't read this newsgroup for probably a year or more. Amazing
how some things don't change! The code war -- it keeps going, and
going, and going, ...
--
======================================================================
John L. Broughton wb9...@mcs.net http://www.mcs.net/~wb9vgj/
======================================================================
Jim Kehler
Cecil Moore <cmo...@sedona.intel.com> wrote:
>pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>Todd, that's a great idea. I don't know why you didn't think of
>>it sooner. Drop the international CW requirment, and make the
>>'common language' requirement ENGLISH.
>Hi Jim, I know your posting was supposed to be funny and someone
Good. I'm glad you have a sense of humor Cecil.
>has said this before. Morse code is not a language. The common
I use to think Morse code was a means of communiction used
by hams. I don't think I ever said it was a language. After some
of the stuff I have read lately, I think a better definition of
Morse code would be 'the primary means for causing arguments
amongst hams on internet'. I have always thought that learning
Morse code was similar to learing a second language, in that
once you really learn it, you never forget it. I know I can
stay off the radio for two or three years, get back on, and in 30
minutes be up to 35 wpm again, but I don't think I ever typed
that sentence before, and I implying that Morse code seems like
a second language to *me*, and not implying that anyone else
should think of it in that manner.
>basis for Morse communications is a symbol chart consisting of
>English characters. These exact same characters can be sent using
>any other mode so Morse code has no advantage over any other mode.
>Two people who don't speak the same language can simply utter the
>alphabetic short forms or send them over Amtor, etc. The short
>forms are alphabetic, they are not Morse code. Morse code uses
>the short forms but so can any other mode.
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC (not speaking for my employer)
I won't argue if the above is true of false, or if Morse code is
binary on not binary, or if it's a language or not a language.
Yes, Cecil, we could make smoke signals for all the letters in
the alphabet. All the digital modes have some method of
encoding/decoding the alphabit. The point of my posting
which you quoted was to remind Mr. Little that his idea of
finding a 'common language' requirement for international amateur
radio operators was kinda silly when we already had one.
Now before you get upset, I *did not* say Morse code is a
language. Why should we force the rest of the world to learn
Klingon, because the U.S. hams are either too busy, too lazy,
or too whatever to learn Morse code ?
Some foreign ham operators are not comfortalbe at all with their
English, and hence would rather work 'DX' on CW. Opinons
are a dime a dozen Cecil, so let me tell you a fact: I have
worked thousands of stations from Guam on HF that I would not
have worked if we didn't have a common mode of communication,
that being Morse code. That's a fact.
As I've said before, I could care less what happens to the code
requirements - code or no code. Either way, hams who want to
use CW will, and those who don't want to won't. It's all that
simple........
The system is obviously changing. First we had 'Pass the test,
get a ticket'. Then we had 'VE testing'. Then we had 'Note from
you doctor and no code required'. Then we had 'No code Tech's'.
An idiot could see what direction we are going in - 'No code
Period'.
What I think doesn't matter. But what saddens me is to read all
the crap from people who are dead hell bent on eliminating Morse
code - you, Cecil, use logic - hell bent, but at least logical. .
But some people use shear unadulterated *crap* to base their no
code arguments on.
Most of these people write as if they have no idea what the
hobby is about. Example - Mr. Little suggests I work someone on
CW on 14.105 - Mr. Little obviously doesn't spend much time on
20 meters as he obviously doesn't know that hams who *do*
operate on 20 meter CW don't do it in the middle of the packet
frequencies on 14.105.
Anyway Cecil, I'm not trying to save CW so don't waste your
logic on me. And again, it's nice to hear that someone has
a sense of humor. I'm sure the code requrement for a U.S.
ham license will be dropped, sooner or later. But I am also
sure that if it happens tommorow, and if I am still alive 20
years from now, I will still be able to turn on my HF radio and
chat with someone on CW if the mood hits me.
73, Jim KH2D - I'm not speaking for my employer either. I don't
have one .......................
Cecil Moore
Jim Kehler <pacri...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
: I use to think Morse code was a means of communiction used
: by hams. I don't think I ever said it was a language.
Hi Jim, I wasn't accusing you of saying it was a language.
As you know, postings on these newsgroups are often aimed
at the wide reading audience, not necessarily at the
previous individual poster.
: Why should we force the rest of the world to learn
: Klingon, because the U.S. hams are either too busy, too lazy,
: or too whatever to learn Morse code ?
IMO, requiring US hams to learn Morse code in order to
be able to communicate with foreign hams is the same
as requiring foreign hams to learn English in
order to be able to communicate with US hams.
This is a hobby, for God's sake. People who dislike
Morse code are barred from HF phone no matter how
qualified they are otherwise and IMO is the basic
reason for the present dumbing down of ham radio.
In our fervor to keep out the riffraff, we are
keeping out the elite. It's time to cut the Morse
code testing Albatross from around the neck of
ham radio.
: I have
: worked thousands of stations from Guam on HF that I would not
: have worked if we didn't have a common mode of communication,
: that being Morse code. That's a fact.
Would you do it even if you didn't enjoy it or worse, hated
it? Nobody is asking you or anybody else to give up Morse
code. Some of us are asking that Morse code not be required
for otherwise qualified people who just do not like it, for
whatever reason. Forcing people to learn 13wpm Morse code
in order to obtain general level phone privileges is tearing
ham radio apart.
: you, Cecil, use logic - hell bent, but at least logical. .
Dang, Jim, I thought I was heaven bound. As a Libertarian,
I believe in allowing people as much individual freedom
as possible.
: But some people use shear unadulterated *crap* to base their no
: code arguments on.
That's the nature of Internet/Netnews. I don't hear those
kinds of arguments on the ham bands including vhf/uhf.
I am not for something-for-nothing. I am asking that
nothing-for-something be changed to something-for-
something. After doing 30% of the effort of generals,
our tech+ brethren are awarded 10% of the general HF
phone privileges on a poor cousins band that is not
very useful at the present time.
: But I am also
: sure that if it happens tommorow, and if I am still alive 20
: years from now, I will still be able to turn on my HF radio and
: chat with someone on CW if the mood hits me.
And that's *exactly* the way it should be. Freedom of choice
among many legally-equally-weighted modes. I love operating
CW. I hate the 13/20wpm CW testing requirement. That puts me
right in the middle of the road concerning Morse code. I was
asked to participate in the great CW debate. I had to decline
because I am not anti CW.
73, Cecil, KG7BK (W6RCA soon), OOTC
Todd Little
In article <4o71f3$i...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
> Yes, Cecil, we could make smoke signals for all the letters in
> the alphabet. All the digital modes have some method of
> encoding/decoding the alphabit. The point of my posting
> which you quoted was to remind Mr. Little that his idea of
> finding a 'common language' requirement for international amateur
> radio operators was kinda silly when we already had one.
Try reading my post again. I was simply commenting on the IARU's
Ad Hoc Committee had determined that we needed to maintain Morse
Code to allow intercommunication to ensure orderly access to a shared
resource. I was merely pointing out that Morse wasn't sufficient
to ensure intercommunication and that a common language or set of
signals was also needed. I personally don't believe a common language
is needed as having one here in the U.S. hasn't seemed to help maintain
orderly access to the HF bands. You also appear to be under the
mistaken impression we have the common language which is needed
above and beyond a common mode and character set.
> Now before you get upset, I *did not* say Morse code is a
> language. Why should we force the rest of the world to learn
> Klingon, because the U.S. hams are either too busy, too lazy,
> or too whatever to learn Morse code ?
So what *is* this common language? You just said we had one
and now say Morse isn't a language. Which is it?
> What I think doesn't matter. But what saddens me is to read all
> the crap from people who are dead hell bent on eliminating Morse
> code - you, Cecil, use logic - hell bent, but at least logical. .
> But some people use shear unadulterated *crap* to base their no
> code arguments on.
Please find any post that suggests eliminating Morse Code. All
that's being suggested is eliminating the mandatory Morse Code
testing to gain HF amateur access.
> Most of these people write as if they have no idea what the
> hobby is about. Example - Mr. Little suggests I work someone on
> CW on 14.105 - Mr. Little obviously doesn't spend much time on
> 20 meters as he obviously doesn't know that hams who *do*
> operate on 20 meter CW don't do it in the middle of the packet
> frequencies on 14.105.
First, I never suggested anyone work anyone anywhere. I used
14.105 as it is probably one of the best known packet frequencies
and nothing in any regulations prohibits CW operation there.
My point was that mandating knowledge of a particular mode
doesn't ensure a common mode. As to the rather lame ad hominem
attack, is that the best you can come up with?
> Anyway Cecil, I'm not trying to save CW so don't waste your
> logic on me. And again, it's nice to hear that someone has
> a sense of humor. I'm sure the code requrement for a U.S.
> ham license will be dropped, sooner or later. But I am also
> sure that if it happens tommorow, and if I am still alive 20
> years from now, I will still be able to turn on my HF radio and
> chat with someone on CW if the mood hits me.
And no one is suggesting otherwise. People still ride horses,
sail 3 masted schooners, and hunt with bow and arrow. In 20
years from now they'll still be doing those things too. Is it so
difficult to understand that no one (at least that I've seen in
this newsgroup) is suggesting elminating, changing, or
otherwise affecting Morse Code? The discussion is whether
it still merits a special place in testing someone before allowing
them access to HF amateur bands.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Jim Kehler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>Try reading my post again. I was simply commenting on the IARU's
>Ad Hoc Committee had determined that we needed to maintain Morse
>Code to allow intercommunication to ensure orderly access to a shared
>resource. I was merely pointing out that Morse wasn't sufficient
>to ensure intercommunication and that a common language or set of
>signals was also needed. I personally don't believe a common language
>is needed as having one here in the U.S. hasn't seemed to help maintain
>orderly access to the HF bands. You also appear to be under the
>mistaken impression we have the common language which is needed
>above and beyond a common mode and character set.
>So what *is* this common language? You just said we had one
>and now say Morse isn't a language. Which is it?
>Please find any post that suggests eliminating Morse Code. All
>that's being suggested is eliminating the mandatory Morse Code
>testing to gain HF amateur access.
>First, I never suggested anyone work anyone anywhere. I used
>14.105 as it is probably one of the best known packet frequencies
>and nothing in any regulations prohibits CW operation there.
>My point was that mandating knowledge of a particular mode
>doesn't ensure a common mode. As to the rather lame ad hominem
>attack, is that the best you can come up with?
>And no one is suggesting otherwise. People still ride horses,
>sail 3 masted schooners, and hunt with bow and arrow. In 20
>years from now they'll still be doing those things too. Is it so
>difficult to understand that no one (at least that I've seen in
>this newsgroup) is suggesting elminating, changing, or
>otherwise affecting Morse Code? The discussion is whether
>it still merits a special place in testing someone before allowing
>them access to HF amateur bands.
>73,
>Todd
>N9MWB
Yes, Todd, we have been talking about eliminating morse code
*testing*. Sorry I forgot to add the word *testing* after the word
*code* every time I typed it. You win. You didn't say anything you
didn't say, I just imagined I read it. You win. You didn't tell me to
"Tell that to someone in Morse code on 14.105 MHz sometime. I'm sure
they'll copy you FB", I imagined it . You win. You didn't tell me
"You're probably one of these individuals that is so caught up
in Morse code that you believe it to be a language and as
a result provides intercommunication across language and
mode barriers", (which, by the way, it most certainly does) and then
when I tell someone else I didn't feel that Morse code is a
*language*, you ask me 'Which is it ?' I imagined it. You win.
Sitting in front of this computer must have affected my brain, you
know, ultra sonic spread spectrium digital VLMF emmissions or
something ...................... or maybe all those damn dits and dahs
really *DO* kill brain cells .....................
The only thing I have difficulty understanding is your logic. But -
you win, there is no need any more for Morse code *testing*. As far
as I can tell, nobody is interested in facts, nobody is really
interested in discussing the future of ham radio, everybody is just
interested in passing out ham tickets to anyone who wants one. You
win, go for it. I already have mine, give anyone else that needs one a
'no effort Extra class', fine with me. Get everyone in the United
States off two meters and onto HF, won't bother me because I won't be
able to hear them over here for another 3 or 4 years, and when I work
them I will just steal the dollar bill out of their QSL card, and
steam the stamp off their SASE like all those other damn DX stations
do. Money in the bank. Another couple hundred QSO's and I can
retire to de Bahamas ................... I still have 2 million hams
in Japan to talk to that need Guam for a new country anyway, that
should keep me busy until HF opens to North America.
There is also no need anymore for me to continune this discussion with
you, Todd, my whole house is made out of concrete. I can walk 30 feet
in any direction and talk to a concrete wall, and besides, you've
*converted* me.
Praise JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEsus, I'm FREE............
I vote YES for no more code *tests*.
I vote YES for 1-800-FRE-TICKET.
I vote YES to grandfather all no code Techs to Extra class.
I vote CECIL the last ham on internet with a sense of humor.
I vote for BERT for President.
73, Jim KH2D
_________________________________________
///////////// Guam's first REFORMED code Nazi. ////////////
Sissy's Pound Brass - Real Hams Pound Their Pudd.
//////////// Save a brass planter - Eat a code key ////////////
-------- Vote YES for 1-800-FRE-TICKET !!!!!! -----------
Todd Little
In article <4ocap6$i...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
[much drivel with no content deleted...]
I guess I missed the part in your post that explained what the
common language was. You said there was one but it wasn't
Morse Code. I'm really curious as I have yet to find one, so your
post has definitely piqued my interest. But perhaps those much
more experienced on 20 meter CW than I can enlighten this
poor soul wandering through the amateur bands. What is it if
not OOK Morse Code that provides this intercommunication
mechanism? And if it *is* OOK Morse Code, how does a common
keying system provide intercommunication?
>_________________________________________
> ///////////// Guam's first REFORMED code Nazi. ////////////
> Sissy's Pound Brass - Real Hams Pound Their Pudd.
> //////////// Save a brass planter - Eat a code key ////////////
> -------- Vote YES for 1-800-FRE-TICKET !!!!!! -----------
Well code Nazi might be appropriate from your posts, reformed
though definitely not. Your definition of "real ham" doesn't seem
to agree with that of your compatriots. Their definition is more
along the line of real hams bound brass (although I don't find a lot
of brass pounders on the air myself. Mostly operators using
bugs or paddles with keyers.)
Like most others that want to maintain the status quo you bring up:
1) Effort
2) Something for nothing
3) Dropping all requirements
Yet I can find little to no support for those positions either from the
posters to this newsgroup or in CFR 47 or specifically Part 97. I take
it from your post that you have nothing to support the above and that
they are simply a straw man meant to scare others into taking your
position?
You accused Cecil of using logic and then demonstrate none of your
own in your posts. Is that because you haven't thought about the
issue and your response is simply an emotional one without a basis
in logic? You're also the first person I've seen that can hold logic
in contempt with an apparent straight face. Perhaps you have more
in common with Bert [sic] than just class of amateur license. ;-)
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Cecil Moore
Todd Little <lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com> wrote:
: What is it if
: not OOK Morse Code that provides this intercommunication
: mechanism? And if it *is* OOK Morse Code, how does a common
: keying system provide intercommunication?
Hi Todd, we're talking about the short forms like 88. A Japanese
ham has a list with ---.. ---.. translated into kata kana for
"love and kisses". Otherwise, one would have a hard time
communicating "love and kisses" to fellow hams of different
tongues. But we don't need Morse code to send 88. I've done
it over FM repeaters. Works great.
: Their definition is more
: along the line of real hams bound brass (although I don't find a lot
: of brass pounders on the air myself. Mostly operators using
: bugs or paddles with keyers.)
Yup, the original digital nerd hams. :-)
Jim Kehler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>I guess I missed the part in your post that explained what the
>common language was. You said there was one but it wasn't
Yes, you did, in fact, miss that part. I imagined when I typed
it that you might, but the dialect of English that I am trying to
use here doesn't consist of four word sentences, so I didn't
bother to go back and fix it. I will give you a hint, it's a sentence
with two thoughts intermingled. If you're interested, go look.
We do seem to have a language problem Todd, with English.
I don't think we speak the same dialect of English. I'm tired
of trying to figure out which dialect you understand, as I
explained earlier.
The only reason I am replying to this is because you wrote:
>You accused Cecil of using logic and then demonstrate none of your
>own in your posts. Is that because you haven't thought about the
>issue and your response is simply an emotional one without a basis
>in logic? You're also the first person I've seen that can hold logic
>in contempt with an apparent straight face. Perhaps you have more
>in common with Bert [sic] than just class of amateur license. ;-)
As someone else once said 'Whooooooa there buckaroo'.......
Cecil is one of my oldest and dearest friends. I never 'accused'
Cecil of using logic, I *complimented him* for doing so. Again,
your basic elementary comprehension of the English words that
emit from my keyboard seems to be lacking. Maybe my spelling errors
screw you up Todd, I don't know. You go back and find that post, if
you are really interested, and compare it the above paragraph that
you just wrote and see in you can find any similairities. As I said
before, and I hope you can figure out what this means, we have
long since passed the point of discussing 'Code/No Code Survey'
as the subject suggests, we are now, and have been, discussing
'Who Said What and What Does It Mean in English'.
Let me know when your Klingon is up to speed, as I said, English
doesn't seem to be working anymore. Maybe we can continue in
Klingon some day. And finally, a thought for the day: Logic is only
as good as the source from which it spews..........
73, Jim KH2D
>73,
>Todd
>N9MWB
___________________________________________________________
Guam's first REFORMED code Nazi.
Sissy's Pound Brass - Real Hams Pound Their Pudd.
Save a brass planter - Eat a code key
Vote YES for 1-800-FRE-TICKET !!!!!!
(C) 1996 - KH2D
Todd Little
In article <4of543$4...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
> lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>
>>I guess I missed the part in your post that explained what the
>>common language was. You said there was one but it wasn't
>
> Yes, you did, in fact, miss that part. I imagined when I typed
> it that you might, but the dialect of English that I am trying to
> use here doesn't consist of four word sentences, so I didn't
> bother to go back and fix it. I will give you a hint, it's a sentence
> with two thoughts intermingled. If you're interested, go look.
Ahh, the gratuitous ad hominem attack. I've looked over the
post several times and amazingly enough, you don't say what
the common language is, only that you claim one exists. Just in
case you've forgotten what you wrote, I'll refresh your memory:
> Yes, Cecil, we could make smoke signals for all the letters in
> the alphabet. All the digital modes have some method of
> encoding/decoding the alphabit. The point of my posting
> which you quoted was to remind Mr. Little that his idea of
> finding a 'common language' requirement for international amateur
> radio operators was kinda silly when we already had one.
You further wrote:
>Some foreign ham operators are not comfortalbe at all with their
>English, and hence would rather work 'DX' on CW. Opinons
>are a dime a dozen Cecil, so let me tell you a fact: I have
>worked thousands of stations from Guam on HF that I would not
>have worked if we didn't have a common mode of communication,
>that being Morse code. That's a fact.
So again I ask, what *is* this common language you speak
of in your first paragraph? One might infer from your second
paragraph that this common language is Morse Code.
Is Morse Code the common language you referred to above
when you said needing one was silly when we already had one?
If so, would you please explain how Morse Code (a system of
encoding any of several character sets into a series of variable
duration signals) fits the definition of language?
> Again, your basic elementary comprehension of the English words that
> emit from my keyboard seems to be lacking. Maybe my spelling errors
> screw you up Todd, I don't know. You go back and find that post, if
> you are really interested, and compare it the above paragraph that
> you just wrote and see in you can find any similairities. As I said
> before, and I hope you can figure out what this means, we have
> long since passed the point of discussing 'Code/No Code Survey'
> as the subject suggests, we are now, and have been, discussing
> 'Who Said What and What Does It Mean in English'.
You can try and dodge the issue any way you like, but my
English is fine and other than your spelling, your English
appears to also be okey. What's lacking is a certain amount of
content that you claim to be there that isn't. Instead of playing
word games, just answer the question: "What is the common
language that we already have?" This is certainly an easy
enough question to answer since you stated we had one in your
previous post. Or is all this attempt at an ad hominem attack
your way of retracting the your statement?
> Let me know when your Klingon is up to speed, as I said, English
> doesn't seem to be working anymore. Maybe we can continue in
> Klingon some day. And finally, a thought for the day: Logic is only
> as good as the source from which it spews..........
Well perhaps your logic is only understandable in Klingon. So
far all I've seen is a lot of smoke to try and hide a rather absurd
claim.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Jim Kehler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>One might infer from your second
>paragraph that this common language is Morse Code.
Brilliant. Only subsitute 'common mode of communication'
for 'common language.
Goodbye, Todd. SY-O-NA-RA. Asta La Vista.........
Again, YOU WIN.........
Jim KH2D
Guam's first REFORMED code Nazi.
Sissy's Pound Brass - Real Hams Pound Their Pudd.
Save a brass planter - Eat a code key
Todd Little
In article <4oh33h$f...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
> lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>
>>One might infer from your second
>>paragraph that this common language is Morse Code.
>
> Brilliant. Only subsitute 'common mode of communication'
> for 'common language.
Sarcasm again, eh? I guess langauge and mode are synonymous
to you. Then your previous post about network bridges translating
Japanese to English wasn't sarcastic after all. You really believe
they don't need to do that because having a common mode (TCP/IP)
is all that's needed for intercommunication. I should be able to read
any of the Japanese language newsgroups. Cool.
Despite your apparent unfailing support, I don't believe the IARU's
Ad Hoc Committee's conclusion passes a rudimentary examination.
Ability to use a common mode is only *one* small piece of what's
required for intercommunication.
Amateurs are already able to intercommunicate using means not
mandated by international treaty. In fact, to be able to communicate
via the only mode mandated by treaty, amateurs have taken it
upon themselves to adopt the other pieces necessary to intercommunicate
without those pieces being required by treaty. The treaty also doesn't
state that someone needs to have the equipment or other facilities
to use this mandated mode. So it is extremely unclear how the treaty
meets the goal of ensuring intercommunication when the mandated
pieces aren't sufficient to use that mode for intercommunication.
It's also extremely unclear as to why the treaty even needs to specify
a mandated mode when amateurs have filled in the missing pieces
and demonstrated their ability to intercommunicate via other modes
without treaty requirements.
> Again, YOU WIN.........
How can I win? You aren't participating and don't care as you've said
before. ;-)
Besides, what's there to win? Is this a contest to you or a discussion of
the basis of the treaties and licensing requirements of our service?
If it's a contest, you've already won as your mode got the most preferred
status award.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Jim Kehler
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>Amateurs are already able to intercommunicate using means not
>mandated by international treaty.
Todd, I understand 'amateur communications', in the last 9 or 10
years I have 'communicated' with 47,472 amateur stations on HF
with just about every mode we can use, with the exception of
SSTV and Pactor.
On CW, 28,949 stations. I feel that Morse code is a common mode
of international communications. Lots of those 28K stations I have
worked on CW, I am sure I would not have worked on any other
mode. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean it's a fact. It's
just the way *I* feel. My opinion. I don't need anyone else to
feel that way, although I am sure there are a few other hams around
who do. I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking,
that is obviously a waste of time. I enjoyed all the CW contacts I
have made, and all the CW contests I participated in. But it's hard
to force people to enjoy things. I enjoy seafood. I have a friend who
goes on a dead run to the nearest bathroom to puke when he sees
someone else eating seafood, because his Mom tried to force him to
enjoy it when he was a kid. I'm smart enuff to realize you can't
force any to enjoy CW. I never thought the purpose of CW testing
was to force anyone to enjoy it. I thought it was there to force
people to show they really had an interest in the hobby before they
got a license. A lot of hams I know learned CW, passed the test,
and never used it again because they didn't want to. But we never
called them 'no-coders' or 'CB'ers', we just called them hams. And
they never called us 'code Nazis', they just called us hams. We never
questioned *why* we had to take a code test or a written test, we
just did it because we wanted a ticket. I enjoyed learning CW. When
my novice ticket came in the mail I already had the wire in the tree,
the radio warmed up, and the straight key on the table. I still
remember a few times I woke up when my face hit the desk at
3 am and I realized the guy I was talking to in Colorado at 4 wpm
was long gone. But I don't expect anyone else to enjoy it just
because I did.
No, I don't think there is a router in Tokyo that changes Japanese to
English. I understand computer networking, I made a living in
computer maintenance for 20+ years. I have been to Japan
many times, it's the closest 'real world' country to where I am now. I
have many Japanese friends who are hams. The English alphabet
doesn't translate to Kanji characters very well.
>How can I win? You aren't participating and don't care as you've said
>before. ;-)
You win, as in I conceed to the idea that it's time to remove CW
testing for U.S. amateur licenses, not because I really feel that it
is, but because I think it's useless to argue any more about it.
There are only two ways to end an argument - force the other side
to quit, or quit yourself. For the sake of ending this argument with
you, I am ready to quit.
It's become very obvioius to me that the battle lines are drawn, the
war has started, and no one at this point seems to be willing to
listen to any facts or suggestions from the other side. It's just an
emotional debate, which always winds up in the name calling mode. I
haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate CW
testing, again, my opinon. And I'm sure that all the people who want
to eliminate CW testing feel that they haven't heard any good reasons
not to. I don't think anyone hears the other side, because everyone
is too busy loading the cannon for the next volley. It becomes
emotional because I guess human nature makes it hard not to
become emotional when people are calling each other idiots,
code Nazis, CB'ers, and what not....... In order to have a discussion,
people need to have open minds, and doesn't seem to me like
many of us do, at least not here on the information stupid highway.
I really don't care - I have not lived in the U.S. for the last eleven
years - maybe ham radio is a lot different there than it used to be,
everything else is, so why should ham radio be the same. I have
plenty of other things to do, I have a business to run, other hobbies,
a wife, etc. so I don't depend on ham radio for anything. At one
point in my life I was very interested in ham radio, I had tons of
free time and it was a great time waster. Now, it's
just one of my hobbies. What I was trying to tell you in my last
message is that I am tired of arguing with you. I think after all
the smoke clears, those of us who are lucky enuff to still be
around will find that when we look back on this discussion,
nobody 'won', everybody lost. If what I see here is a true
representation of how U.S. amateurs feel about CW testing,
then I'm sure it will be elimated, sooner or later. So I'd
rather not contiune fighting a loosing battle, if it's OK with
you.
If you want to talk about satellites, or contests, or packet,
or RTTY, or DX, or EME, or QSL cards, (or golf & fishing),
fine, I'll be glad to talk about it with you. But I'd rather just
put the Code/No Code thing to rest. If you have more battles
to fight elsewhere and feel your time would be better spent
loading the cannon, go for it. I've got plenty of other stuff to
do. Thanks for the discussion.
73, Jim KH2D
WB3U
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>CW testing,
Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
elimination intended to accomplish?
73,
Jack WB3U
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4om839$5...@crash.microserve.net>, ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) writes:
> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>
>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>CW testing,
>
How about "But I don't wanna learn dat code stuff"? :-)
> The Morse requirement
> has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
> elimination intended to accomplish?
>
> 73,
> Jack WB3U
Increased revenue for government, amateur magazine publishers and equipment
manufacturers when HF is made available to _all_ these people the CW
requirement is keeping away? ;->
The CW requirement is applicable to a meagre 3.75 MHz of overcrowded
spectrum where CW is, barring radio-telephone, used my more amateurs
than all other modes combined. This situation has persisted for many
decades, despite the emergence of new modes.
My question is: What benefits to amateur radio are sought by those
nonamateurs and minority of amateurs who want CW testing removed for
access to HF?
Joe VO1NA
Jim Cummings
>>CW testing,
>
>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>elimination intended to accomplish?
>
>73,
>Jack WB3U
The following is a good reason for abolishing Morse code:
The orginal reason for the testing of an individual's knowledge of
the Morse code was that amateur and commercial stations had to share the
same spectrum. Amateurs were required to know the Morse code so that a
common communications mode could be established the commercial ones. The
establishment of communciations between these stations was vital because
the commercial stations had priority in the use of the spectrum. Amateur
stations were expected to conform to the orders of commercial stations by
complying with certain prowords sent in Morse code if the amateur
stations were the source of harmful interference. Since the allocation
of bands for particular services, the original need for Morse code
testing is moot. Therefore, Morse code testing no longer legitimate.
There are many other reasons that are advanced for the "need" for Morse
code testing, listed as follows:
1. Tradition: Morse code played a vital road in the development in
amateur radio and its existence should continue.
2. I had to do it, so should you: This is the theory of the level
playing field in that it ensures that everyone jumps through the same
hoops in order to become qualified.
3. Emergency communications: Morse code gets through when all else
fails, so all amateur should know Morse code as a last resort whenever
there is an emergency.
4. Work ethic: By proving that one has passed the Morse code, one has
proved that they are worthy of being a radio amateur.
5. Popularity: It is, according to many unreliable surveys, the second
most popular mode of communications in the amateur bands.
6. Easy construction of equipment: Morse code transmitters and receivers
are easy to build.
7. Fosters international communications: Morse code is the common lingua
franca of the amateur frequencies.
There are probably others that can be identified, but there is no point
in getting into the minutiae. None the less, they all share a key
characteristic - they do not substantiate the need the for the continued
testing in the knowledge of Morse code.
Some of them are based on false assumptions. For example, the
contention that Morse code gets through when all else fails is no longer
true. Yet, it is hardly surprising that this view continues to be
heralded because those who train individuals to become amateurs, for the
most part, continue to propagate this mythology. Some of these reasons
would contra-indicate the need for Morse code testing. For example, if
indeed Morse code is so popular, then testing is not required because it
would survive in the amateur service on its own merits.
Other notions would be detrimental to the pursuit of using new modes.
Both the tradition based reasons and the "I had to do it, so should you"
are without merit, particularly the former. The "tradional" need for
Morse code falls flat on its face in the fact that the rest of the
amateur examination has evolved where the candidate is asked few, if any
questions on the older technologies, i.e. tubes. In so far as building
simple and easy equipment, no doubt that is true. But the difference of
building a digital rig compared to a CW rig is trivial - one compontent.
Furthermore, thanks to the advancements in technology, phone rigs which
heretofor were a daunting task to build are quite easy to fabricate at
home. With respect to international communications, if one wishes to
communicate beyond their borders, that should be left to their decision.
If there is a need to communciate with others in Morse code beyond their
borders, then it should be left up to the individual to learn the Morse
code in order to do so. Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC
countries using digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the
view that Morse code is a common mode of communications. In fact, I
would be better off learning how to communicate in other languages beyond
my present capabilities in English and French; this would be beneficial
to me whether I operated Baudot or Morse code. Finally, the work ethic
value lacks validity as well. It lacks validity because the amount of
effort that one devotes to a learning Morse code is not relative to
determining if the individual is qualified to operate an amateur station.
Considering that the government's legitimate interest is the mitigation
of interference, the effort expended in learning the Morse code has
little bearing in determining operator competence.
There is another reason for the retention of Morse code that I failed to
list. Those who advocate the retention of Morse code do so because they
are well aware that it will have to survive on its own merits. They are
acutely terrified that many will not even bother to try it since the
government would no longer require Morse code testing. The result will
be that Morse code will likely be a niche mode of communications, in
similar manner as those who operate double sideband, transmitted carrier
AM radiotelephone.
Considering that the above mentioned percieved needs for Morse code
testing are utterly without merit and the original need for Morse code
has been obviated due to spectrum allocation, the best reason for
abolishing Morse code testing is that it is not needed.
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Jim Cummings
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>In article <4om839$5...@crash.microserve.net>, ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) writes:
>> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>
>>>CW testing,
>>
>
>
>> has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>> elimination intended to accomplish?
>>
>> 73,
>> Jack WB3U
>
Of course this is only applicable to those administrations that continue
to charge radio licences fees. This argument has no merit because it
would be much easier just to increase the radio licence fees, rather than
the await the increased revenue from the increased number of amateurs.
>amateur magazine publishers and equipment
>manufacturers when HF is made available to _all_ these people the CW
>requirement is keeping away? ;->
>
Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF spectrum
would result in little significant increase in the amateur population,
this not likely to have a significant effect upon the bottom lines of
these businesses and services.
>The CW requirement is applicable to a meagre 3.75 MHz of overcrowded
>spectrum where CW is, barring radio-telephone, used my more amateurs
>than all other modes combined. This situation has persisted for many
>decades, despite the emergence of new modes.
>
Indeed, the advocacy of continued Morse code testing often cites that it
is means of preventing over-crowding. Yet, there is no valid measurement
to determine over-crowding in the amateur bands. Moreover, we are
supposed to be inovators, yet we seemingly use Morse code as a means to
mitigate over-crowding in the radiotelephone bands but actively denigrate
the use of newer technologies on these same bands which would mitigate
over-crowding, what ever that is.
>My question is: What benefits to amateur radio are sought by those
>nonamateurs and minority of amateurs who want CW testing removed for
>access to HF?
>
Absolutely none. The amateur service in general benefits because no
longer would we be testing individuals in skills that are unrelated to
being a competent amateur operator. This has the added benefit that the
public at large would no longer be able to point out how amateur radio is
more interested in maintaining relatively inefficient modes of
communications, and the amateur community can emphasize that its
members continue to investigate new and improved modes of
radiocommunciations and networks. It will be much easier to retain our
current allocations when we can point out that we are pursuing new modes
of communciations when it comes time to examine the allocations of radio
services. both domestically and internationally. Continued testing of
Morse code hardly fosters the arguement for the retention of our
allocations.
>Joe VO1NA
WB5RUE
In article <1996May31.094014.1@leif>, jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>
>In article <4om839$5...@crash.microserve.net>,
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com
>(WB3U) writes:
>> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>>CW testing,
>>
>> Good reasons? How about *any* reasons?
>
>How about "But I don't wanna learn dat code stuff"? :-)
>
>> The Morse requirement
>> has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>> elimination intended to accomplish?
>>
>> 73,
>> Jack WB3U
>
>Increased revenue for government, amateur magazine publishers and
equipment
>manufacturers when HF is made available to _all_ these people the CW
>requirement is keeping away? ;->
yep! Follow the money-trail!
<snip>
>Joe VO1NA
Kevin, WB5RUE
WB5RUE
> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>
>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>CW testing,
>
>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>elimination intended to accomplish?
>
>73,
>Jack WB3U
It will bring those "rocket scientists" who don't have the time or
inclination to
learn CW into the hobby. What I don't understand is that if they don't
have the time to learn CW how are they going to have the time for Amateur
Radio?
Kevin, WB5RUE
Cecil Moore
WB5RUE <wb5...@aol.com> wrote:
: What I don't understand is that if they don't
: have the time to learn CW how are they going to have the time for Amateur
: Radio?
Hi Kevin, this seems to be one of the side-effects of too much Morse code,
not being able to see the entire picture. CW and phone are as unrelated
as fishing and football. Some people hate one and love the other.
These "Rocket Scientists" are just not going to do something they hate!
In the case of Dr. Williamson, his perceived pleasure of HF phone is not
great enough to overcome his perceived pain of CW so don't expect him
to contribute his considerable talents to a service that requires him
to submit to hazing before he can participate in what he enjoys. After
all, he is not a masochist.
73, Cecil, KG7BK
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>CW testing,
>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>elimination intended to accomplish?
>Jack WB3U
How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
to acomplish. The role of CW in amateur communications is
primarily a past tense relationship to contemporary
radio communications. Yes...hams still do CW, but they
are, almost the only remaining users of the mode. As such,
there is no longer a need for ALL amateurs to learn
CW since the liklihood of needing CW expertise for
any emergency today is almost totally nonexistent. Requests
for even one recent emergency situation that involved a
ham using CW have brought up no examples.
WB3U
Cecil Moore <kg...@primenet.com> wrote:
>In the case of Dr. Williamson, his perceived pleasure of HF phone
>is not great enough to overcome his perceived pain of CW so don't
>expect him to contribute his considerable talents to a service that
>requires him to submit to hazing before he can participate in what
>he enjoys. After all, he is not a masochist.
Apparently, he's neither a mashochist nor a radio operator.
Too bad his considerable talents aren't matched by considerable
motivation. I wonder why he doesn't want to put his expertise
to use on VHF/UHF?
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
wb5...@aol.com (WB5RUE) wrote:
>What I don't understand is that if they don't have the time to
>learn CW how are they going to have the time for Amateur Radio?
I suspect they only have time to pick up the mic and press the
PTT switch. There are other services better suited to that. ;)
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>The orginal reason for the testing of an individual's knowledge
>of the Morse code was that amateur and commercial stations had to
>share the same spectrum.
Regardless of whether it's true, this statement is entirely
irrelevant. As radio matured, the usefuness of Morse expanded.
>Since the allocation of bands for particular services, the original
>need for Morse code testing is moot. Therefore, Morse code testing
>no longer legitimate.
False premise, false conclusion.
>There are many other reasons that are advanced for the "need"
>for Morse code testing, listed as follows:
<snip>
>Some of them are based on false assumptions. For example, the
>contention that Morse code gets through when all else fails is no
>longer true.
Not every ham station is configured with the latest, universally
compatible technology, nor is this a mandate of the Service. In
this context, Morse is still the most effective mode.
>For example, if indeed Morse code is so popular, then testing is
>not required because it would survive in the amateur service on
>its own merits.
Survival of the mode isn't the issue. The purpose of testing is
verification of operator competence and qualifications.
>In so far as building simple and easy equipment, no doubt that
>is true. But the difference of building a digital rig compared
>to a CW rig is trivial - one compontent.
What component is that? I tried connecting a resistor to my mic
jack, but nothing happened. Ditto for a capacitor and a roller
inductor. The fact is, there's no comparison between a simple CW
transceiver and the complexity of a state of the art digital system.
>Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC countries using
>digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the view
>that Morse code is a common mode of communications.
What percentage of all hams worldwide does that represent?
>Considering that the government's legitimate interest is the
>mitigation of interference,
More nonsense. You could accomplish this goal by simply not
transmitting.
>the effort expended in learning the Morse code has little bearing
>in determining operator competence.
This is substantialy contradicted by the demonstrable usefulness
of the mode.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF
>spectrum would result in little significant increase in the amateur
>population, this not likely to have a significant effect upon the
>bottom lines of these businesses and services.
This paragraph totally defies rational thought. Even ignoring the
flood of incoming CB'ers, every ham who wanted to migrate from VHF
to HF would have to buy an HF rig first. The difference to the
bottom line would be *huge*.
>>My question is: What benefits to amateur radio are sought by those
>>nonamateurs and minority of amateurs who want CW testing removed for
>>access to HF?
>Absolutely none.
Thank you for your honosty.
73,
Jack WB3U
KD6FYK
Bill Sohl wrote:
> >>CW testing,
>
> >has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
> >elimination intended to accomplish?
> >Jack WB3U
>
> How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
> to acomplish. The role of CW in amateur communications is
> primarily a past tense relationship to contemporary
> radio communications. Yes...hams still do CW, but they
> are, almost the only remaining users of the mode. As such,
> there is no longer a need for ALL amateurs to learn
> CW since the liklihood of needing CW expertise for
> any emergency today is almost totally nonexistent. Requests
> for even one recent emergency situation that involved a
> ham using CW have brought up no examples.
>
> Bill Sohl K2UNK
> ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
finally,an excellent answer with out the big (read egotistical)words.
thanks bill--cw for those who like it,leave the rest of us alone.
73 to all,steve/sometimes in cm88ll--p.s.,go to sleep ken
KD6FYK
i resemble dat remark.
Jim Kehler
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>CW testing,
>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>elimination intended to accomplish?
>73,
>Jack WB3U
I dunno, Jack. You'll have to ask Todd that question ......
73, Jim KH2D
Michael P. Deignan
>It will bring those "rocket scientists" who don't have the time or
>inclination to learn CW into the hobby. What I don't understand is that if
>they don't have the time to learn CW how are they going to have the time for
>Amateur Radio?
Or, more to the point, why are they not ALREADY amateur radio operators,
since we already have a codeless license that gives access to 99% of all
available amateur spectrum. And, I might add, gives access to spectrum
which is the most endangered and threatened by commercial reallocation
interests.
The answer, of course, is that there are not hoards of "technically
advanced" people waiting "to get in to" the amateur radio service if
only "the code requirement" were dropped. The influx of new amateurs
over the course of the past five years is consistant with any other
requirements-reducing action -- you'll always get an influx of new
people that have wanted to join but didn't because of a particular
barrier.
MD
--
--
-- "I have more guns than I need, and less guns than I want." -- Phil Graam
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
WB3U
KD6FYK <kd6...@wco.com> wrote:
>Bill Sohl wrote:
>> How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
>> to acomplish.
<snip>
>finally,an excellent answer with out the big (read egotistical)
>words. thanks bill--cw for those who like it,leave the rest of
>us alone.
I'm perfectly content to leave you alone. The problem is, you want
to occupy the part of the spectrum I use, even though you're not
qualified to do so.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>>elimination intended to accomplish?
>>Jack WB3U
>How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
>to acomplish.
The burden of proof is not on those who wish to see the basic
nature of Amateur Radio remain the same. Change brings risk,
and risk must be justified through perceived benefits. If
you can't do that, the change has no foreseeable merit.
>The role of CW in amateur communications is primarily a past
>tense relationship to contemporary radio communications.
No it's only obsolete for communications funded through large
government or commercial budgets.
>Yes...hams still do CW, but they are, almost the only remaining
>users of the mode.
That's because we are one of the few services in which individual,
disposable income must be sufficient build a transmit/receive
site capable of reliable, worldwide communications.
>As such, there is no longer a need for ALL amateurs to learn
>CW since the liklihood of needing CW expertise for
>any emergency today is almost totally nonexistent.
"Almost" isn't good enough. Amateurs are the last resort for
emergency communications, not the first. As such, the conditions
in which our work is actually necessary, not merely convenient,
may be a far cry from the norm.
>Requests for even one recent emergency situation that involved
>a ham using CW have brought up no examples.
That only means recent situations didn't require it, not that
such a situation won't occur. In a truly desperate natural
disaster or other dire emergency, all bets are off. Preparedness
demands that a ham be able to access as many modes as possible,
and the simpler, the better.
73,
Jack WB3U
Todd Little
In article <4os2iu$7...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>
pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
> ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>
>> pacri...@kuentos.guam.net (Jim Kehler) wrote:
>
>>>I haven't heard any of what I feel are good reasons to eliminate
>>>CW testing,
>
>>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>>elimination intended to accomplish?
>
>>73,
>>Jack WB3U
>
> I dunno, Jack. You'll have to ask Todd that question ......
The elimination is only intended to accomplish the rather obvious goal
of ensuring that regulations or legislation are still relevant to the purposes
they orginally served. Just like drivers tests don't require hand cranking
an engine or using a manual transmission. Just like legislation that
limits where one can tie up or water their horse. Just like thousands
or more likely 100's of thousands of other government rules, regulations,
and legislation that should be removed because the problem they
set out to solve or the purpose they intended to accomplish no longer
exists. This isn't really a difficult concept.
The other potential side effect might be that the rest of the world
won't view amateur radio as an anachronism. We're supposed to be
contributing to the state of the art, not preserving radio history.
Please explain how the Morse requirement does the former instead
of the later? Good grief, we have extra class amateurs that still believe
the myth that manual OOK Morse will get through when nothing else will.
I can imagine what professional communication engineers must think of
the amateur radio services technical acumen with beliefs like that floating
around. No wonder the LEOs believe they can make a bid for our allocations.
We'd rather clilng to the past than look to the future. I'm sure the ITU
will be impressed with our radio history preservation efforts.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
KD6FYK
> >> to acomplish.
>
> >finally,an excellent answer with out the big (read egotistical)
> >words. thanks bill--cw for those who like it,leave the rest of
> >us alone.
>
> I'm perfectly content to leave you alone. The problem is, you want
> to occupy the part of the spectrum I use, even though you're not
> qualified to do so.
>
> 73,
> Jack WB3U
i never said i want that part but soon i'll be able to.let the games
begin.p.s.,bert is kinda funny,some of you are oh so droll.
steve,possibly leaving cm88ll to go to kf6cau's house for dinner.
Cecil A. Moore~
In article <4oofpo$s...@jupiter.planet.net>,
Bill Sohl <bill...@planet.net> wrote:
>How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
>to acomplish. The role of CW in amateur communications is
>primarily a past tense relationship to contemporary
>radio communications. Yes...hams still do CW, but they
>are, almost the only remaining users of the mode.
Hi Bill, (Apologies to my friend Jack) Seems to me all the
commercial interests have to do to win the argument over
whether they should have 2m and 440 mhz is to prove that
ham radio is still in the dark ages. Their lawyer could
say, "Those guys don't matter. They are still requiring
and using an RF mode that is 100 years old and obsolete.
They are exactly like the Ammish (sp?). Their religion
requires them to use horse-and-buggy techinques in a super-
hiway technical world." It doesn't matter that CW is not
used very much on those bands. It's still a good political
argument. Don't think it can't happen. Hams don't own the
ham bands or didn't anybody realize that? Just be thankful
for what has been given to us in the past. The New World
Order is not going to be so generous. I remember 1943 -
*ALL* amateur radio transmissions were illegal for three
years! Why not make it forever?
73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC (not speaking for my employer)
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>>Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF
>>spectrum would result in little significant increase in the amateur
>>population, this not likely to have a significant effect upon the
>>bottom lines of these businesses and services.
>This paragraph totally defies rational thought. Even ignoring the
>flood of incoming CB'ers,
What flood of incoming CBers. Perhas you can elaborate
on whatever it is you think CB has to do with this.
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> KD6FYK <kd6...@wco.com> wrote:
> >Bill Sohl wrote:
>>> How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
>>> to acomplish.
> <snip>
>>finally,an excellent answer with out the big (read egotistical)
>>words. thanks bill--cw for those who like it,leave the rest of
>>us alone.
>I'm perfectly content to leave you alone. The problem is, you want
>to occupy the part of the spectrum I use, even though you're not
>qualified to do so.
That is an absolute crock. Qualifcations change over time and that
is what YOU don't want. I have access now to all but a few
KHz of HF now. I'm fully qualified in case that may have missed
your attention. I have little at all to gain by advocating an end
to the CW requirement in its current form.
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>The orginal reason for the testing of an individual's knowledge
>>of the Morse code was that amateur and commercial stations had to
>>share the same spectrum.
>Regardless of whether it's true, this statement is entirely
>irrelevant. As radio matured, the usefuness of Morse expanded.
And as radio continues to mature, the usefulness of CW is now
on the outgoing tide.
>>There are many other reasons that are advanced for the "need"
>>for Morse code testing, listed as follows:
> <snip>
>>Some of them are based on false assumptions. For example, the
>>contention that Morse code gets through when all else fails is no
>>longer true.
>Not every ham station is configured with the latest, universally
>compatible technology, nor is this a mandate of the Service. In
>this context, Morse is still the most effective mode.
Yet there have been NO emergencies in several years
that have been forced to rely on Morce to "get through".
That is why the Coast Guard does not invest in training
for CW any more.
>>For example, if indeed Morse code is so popular, then testing is
>>not required because it would survive in the amateur service on
>>its own merits.
>Survival of the mode isn't the issue. The purpose of testing is
>verification of operator competence and qualifications.
To suggest that being able to send or receive morse is
any way an actual operational test is bull.
>>In so far as building simple and easy equipment, no doubt that
>>is true. But the difference of building a digital rig compared
>>to a CW rig is trivial - one compontent.
>What component is that? I tried connecting a resistor to my mic
>jack, but nothing happened. Ditto for a capacitor and a roller
>inductor. The fact is, there's no comparison between a simple CW
>transceiver and the complexity of a state of the art digital system.
If construction is your hallmark of all amateurs, the testing
for CW has nothing to do with it. Hams can continue
building CW rigs forever if they like. Testing for CW has nothing
to do with that...unless the real worry is that if hams are
not FORCED to learn CW, then the mode will perhaps die on its own.
>>Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC countries using
>>digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the view
>>that Morse code is a common mode of communications.
>What percentage of all hams worldwide does that represent?
It makes no difference. Nothing in the FCC rules or
regs mandates that every ham must be able to converse
with every other possible ham they might encounter.
>>Considering that the government's legitimate interest is the
>>mitigation of interference,
>More nonsense. You could accomplish this goal by simply not
>transmitting.
>>the effort expended in learning the Morse code has little bearing
>>in determining operator competence.
>This is substantialy contradicted by the demonstrable usefulness
>of the mode.
You keep touting the usefulness of CW, yet you refuse
to see that other modes are as useful or more so than CW.
Yin Lung Shih
In article <4os7uf$7...@anomaly.ideamation.com>,
Michael P. Deignan <kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com> wrote:
>In article <4on9i0$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, WB5RUE <wb5...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>It will bring those "rocket scientists" who don't have the time or
>>inclination to learn CW into the hobby. What I don't understand is that if
>>they don't have the time to learn CW how are they going to have the time for
>>Amateur Radio?
>
>Or, more to the point, why are they not ALREADY amateur radio operators,
>since we already have a codeless license that gives access to 99% of all
>available amateur spectrum.
>
>The answer, of course, is that there are not hoards of "technically
>advanced" people waiting "to get in to" the amateur radio service if
>only "the code requirement" were dropped.
Perhaps I fit in the category or "rocket scientist" as I am an
electrical engineer with BS and MS degrees, and experience in DSP,
high performance processing, comm networks, neural networks, and even
designed Loran and GPS receivers. In fact the codeless Tech did get me
into the hobby in the last year, after an early interest which wasn't
successful because of the code requirement (barrier). Only after I was
enticed by the codeless Tech did I learn Morse and ended up with an
Extra last month. But to my mind CW is a purely anachronistic stylized
skill in this day and age, sort of like fly-fishing, and I learned it
primarily for the challenge (and to see if there was anything to the
claims for it) not because I considered it of any use in "advanced"
comm technology.
Now I am only one example, and you can't argue from examples, but I
have gotten two other electrical engineers (a friend from college and
my niece's husband) into the hobby so far via the codeless Tech route,
and I'm sure I could never have made it interesting enough for them
to expend he effort if they had to learn CW. Plus, I can give you a
viewpoint: that is that someone who makes his living in advanced
technology generally has plenty of interesting projects in mind (if
they consider working on tech projects at all in their spare time);
why spend hundreds of hours to learn a "useless" (in the context of
interesting comm developments) skill (after all not everyone is into
fly fishing ) just to qualify themselves to work on a project that is
supposed to be for pleasure/leisure?
In fact, one of the reasons I didn't follow up on the interest in ham
radio until I learned about the codeless Tech was because by the time I
was in college and started my EE career, I was already working on more
fun stuff than I had spare time. How about: a 200W per channel ultra
low distortion audio amp, a Tek 4010-compatible raster graphics engine
and video terminal in a 200 cu.in. keyboard case, a 100W switching power
regulator, a Bresenham vector generator CMOS IC, an adder/accumulator
ECL IC with a 5ns flow through time for DSP - just this list is all
circa late 1970's when these projects were leading edge and while I
was still in school. These projects were chosen because of my
interests, if I had been a ham, there is a good chance they would
have had a radio/comm component, but they certainly didn't because I
certainly wasn't.
Well, in fact, I can admit (now that the statute of limitations has
run out ;-) ) to participating with a group of EE students that
designed and built a 5 Watt FM stereo radio station from raw components
(from the hand scribed microstrip in the RF section to the milled and
lettered mixer panel in the audio section) - of course I took no part
in operating it. The distortion characteristics were really good,
since we were interested in putting together an "audiophile's" FM
station, and the emissions characteristics were equally good, since
we didn't want to generate the slightest interference outside the
unused FM channel we had chosen for "testing". Since the result of
this effort would probably have been construed to have been used in
an "illegal" fashion, nothing was ever published about it and so no
one else ever learned anything from it. Now imagine that there was
no "controversy" over its use and instead it was a nice FM transceiver
for VHF designed by licensed hams, it could easily have ended up as
an article in QST. But none of us were at that time since a Tech
license still required CW.
At the same time, if such EE's do work on a radio project, you are
getting people with real skills in DSP, ASIC design, artificial
intelligence, pattern recognition, comm networks, high frequency/high
data rates, coding and information theory, etc. Of course, not every
EE will jump into an advanced design project (just as not everyone who
learns CW designs a new HF radio or transmission protocol), but a small
percentage of a few thousand is better than that same small percentage
of a few.
P.S. Lot's of CW people have told me "once you learn code at 20+WPM,
it's more fun than you can imagine" or the equivalent. (I took the
praises of "more fun than sex" as clear hyperbole ;-) ). Well,
perhaps I'm still not fast enough, but I'm afraid the rewards have
been over-rated so far.
Yin Shih, KO6VY, PP-ASEL-IA
yls...@alumnae.caltech.edu
WB3U
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>And as radio continues to mature, the usefulness of CW is now
>on the outgoing tide.
Amateur Radio itself is on the outgoing tide. That's no
reason to destroy it prematurely.
>Yet there have been NO emergencies in several years
>that have been forced to rely on Morce to "get through".
>That is why the Coast Guard does not invest in training
>for CW any more.
Coast Guard modes of operation are irrelevant to our service.
Of course, if you can convince the government to give each
of us a redundant, multi-hundred thousand dollar digital
transmit/receive site, I might reconsider.
>To suggest that being able to send or receive morse is
>any way an actual operational test is bull.
Not only is it an operational test, it's the only one we
will ever have that measures operator skill, preparedness,
motivation, and the ability to fulfill the goals of the
service under a variety of conditions.
>If construction is your hallmark of all amateurs, the testing
>for CW has nothing to do with it.
The topic wasn't construction, it was simplicity.
>Nothing in the FCC rules or regs mandates that every ham
>must be able to converse with every other possible ham
>they might encounter.
The rules also don't require that every ham learn CW.
>You keep touting the usefulness of CW, yet you refuse
>to see that other modes are as useful or more so than CW.
No, you're just missing the big picture. That's why your
position relies on so many misconceptions for support.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>That is an absolute crock. Qualifcations change over time and that
>is what YOU don't want.
What I don't want is for you to tell me what I don't want.
You're not qualified to do that.
>I have access now to all but a few KHz of HF now. I'm fully
>qualified in case that may have missed your attention. I have
>little at all to gain by advocating an end to the CW requirement
>in its current form.
So your input to this thread is what, a charitable contribution
to the downtrodden? Your motives (or lack of) are immaterial.
What you're advocating would flood the HF bands with unqualified
operators and it matters little whether you're one of them.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>>Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF
>>>spectrum would result in little significant increase in the amateur
>>>population, this not likely to have a significant effect upon the
>>>bottom lines of these businesses and services.
>>This paragraph totally defies rational thought. Even ignoring the
>>flood of incoming CB'ers,
>What flood of incoming CBers. Perhas you can elaborate
>on whatever it is you think CB has to do with this.
I'll be glad to, but first I'd like to know why you selected
this particular phrase to question? Are you saying that you
agree with Jim's previous comment, or are you simply trying to
find fault with one small part of what I said? Placing this
phrase under a microscope won't redeem Jim's statement.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>> ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>>The Morse requirement has played a major role in shaping
>>>Amateur Radio. What is its elimination intended to accomplish?
>The elimination is only intended to accomplish the rather obvious
>goal of ensuring that regulations or legislation are still
>relevant to the purposes they orginally served.
This is a valid concept to be sure, but it is much too vague to
satisfy a request for legitimate accomplishment. That would
require that you (or someone) describe the (valid) benefits this
would have specific to Amateur Radio.
>We're supposed to be contributing to the state of the art,
>not preserving radio history.
Anything new can be advanced on VHF/UHF with no concern
whatsoever for CW. Elimination of the requirement on this
basis fails to produce a benefit.
>Good grief, we have extra class amateurs that still believe
>the myth that manual OOK Morse will get through when nothing else
>will. I can imagine what professional communication engineers must
>think of the amateur radio services technical acumen with beliefs
>like that floating around.
First, they probably think exactly what I think - many hams aren't
professional engineers. Second, I've known professional engineers
who didn't know the color code. Good grief, what are Extra Class
Amateurs supposed to think about the engineering profession? :)
>No wonder the LEOs believe they can make a bid for our
>allocations.
Well, you've got me here. I'm sure no one would want our
frequencies if we dropped the Morse requirement. ;)
73,
Jack WB3U
Todd Little
In article <4ou2gt$8...@crash.microserve.net>
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
> >ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> >>Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
>>And as radio continues to mature, the usefulness of CW is now
>>on the outgoing tide.
>
> Amateur Radio itself is on the outgoing tide. That's no
> reason to destroy it prematurely.
Ever occur to you that those tides might be somehow linked? ;-)
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Jim Cummings
>>of the Morse code was that amateur and commercial stations had to
>>share the same spectrum.
>
>Regardless of whether it's true, this statement is entirely
>irrelevant. As radio matured, the usefuness of Morse expanded.
Regretably, this is not true. Morse code is a means of transmitting
information. Other modes have supplanted this means much more
effectively. In addition, there is little or no evidence that Morse code
plays as significant a role as it once may have in providing
communications assistance during emergencies. Therefore, the relevancy
of Morse code has been diminuated by the advances of technology.
>
>>Since the allocation of bands for particular services, the original
>>need for Morse code testing is moot. Therefore, Morse code testing
>>no longer legitimate.
>
>False premise, false conclusion.
>
Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise is
false, the conclusion still stands.
>>There are many other reasons that are advanced for the "need"
>>for Morse code testing, listed as follows:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Some of them are based on false assumptions. For example, the
>>contention that Morse code gets through when all else fails is no
>>longer true.
>
>Not every ham station is configured with the latest, universally
>compatible technology, nor is this a mandate of the Service. In
>this context, Morse is still the most effective mode.
>
The fact that amateurs do not undertake to equip their stations with the
latest in technology is their choice, but that hardly justifies the
continuance of Morse code testing.
>>For example, if indeed Morse code is so popular, then testing is
>>not required because it would survive in the amateur service on
>>its own merits.
>
>Survival of the mode isn't the issue. The purpose of testing is
>verification of operator competence and qualifications.
>
Exactly and Morse code is not a verification of operator copetence and
qualifications. It does not make the individual more polite, or less
likely to interefere with his/her fellow amateurs or more capable of
operating in a net, or more technically competent, or mitigate the
interference on the next door neighbour's stereo. Morse code testing is
a confirmation that the Pavlovian conditioning has taken effect - hear
"didah", write the letter "A". That is its only value. Any other
postulations as to its efficacy is fatuous.
>>In so far as building simple and easy equipment, no doubt that
>>is true. But the difference of building a digital rig compared
>>to a CW rig is trivial - one compontent.
>
>What component is that? I tried connecting a resistor to my mic
>jack, but nothing happened. Ditto for a capacitor and a roller
>inductor.
.. so much for the utility of Morse code testing as a measure of
competency...
Seriously, the addition of a padder capacitor in the frequency
determining portion of the transmitter is all that is necessary to
provide fo the frequency shift necessary for most digital communications.
For those who would wish a more elegant solution, a couple of resistors
in a voltage divider network and a varactor will also produce the same
result.
>The fact is, there's no comparison between a simple CW
>transceiver and the complexity of a state of the art digital system.
>
In contradiction to Long's opinion, the difference between a digital rig
and a CW is trivial.
>>Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC countries using
>>digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the view
>>that Morse code is a common mode of communications.
>
>What percentage of all hams worldwide does that represent?
>
I don't know, nor is it really relevant to the discussion. The point was
made in riposte to the assertion that Morse code is necessary in order to
communicate with amateur living in nations that are not a technically
evolved as ours. Not only is the assertion cultural snobbery, my
experience shows that it is utterly without foundation.
>>Considering that the government's legitimate interest is the
>>mitigation of interference,
>
>More nonsense. You could accomplish this goal by simply not
>transmitting.
>
True enough. But then there would be no need to have the amateur
service...
>>the effort expended in learning the Morse code has little bearing
>>in determining operator competence.
>
>This is substantialy contradicted by the demonstrable usefulness
>of the mode.
But the justification for testing is not based on usefulness or even
popularity, but on need. In the context of advanced communciations
modes, the use of Morse code is also optional, there is no discernable
need for it.
>
>73,
>Jack WB3U
73 and live better digitally
Jim, VE3XJ
Rich McAllister
In article <1996May31.094014.1@leif> jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>My question is: What benefits to amateur radio are sought by those
>nonamateurs and minority of amateurs who want CW testing removed for
>access to HF?
(Apologies to those of you who've seen this before, but there
do seem to be new people around now.)
There is something disadvantageous about REQUIRING Morse. In fact
there are several.
1. Despite the vast improvement of the no-code Tech, I still find when
talking to people that I think would be good prospects for ham
radio that they ask "is Morse Code still required?" When I explain
the situation, they lose interest since it's clear to them that hams
are still using Morse as an artificial barrier to keep people like
them out. To many technically oriented non-hams, Morse is so
obviously a quaint, obsolete form of communication that our
insistence on keeping the requirement makes us seem like Luddites
that they really don't want to associate with.
I think it's true that somebody who stays out of ham radio because of
this perception has a low enough level of motivation that they might not
become hams anyway. But it's very important that people like this -- who
tend to be articulate and often politically involved -- have a good
opinion of amateur radio. We need them thinking "the reason I'm not a
ham is I just didn't get around to it, maybe I will someday", not "the
reason I'm not a ham is most hams are only interested in preserving
obsolete technology."
2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening to
tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting on the
air, building things, or studying something really new. We'd be
better off if they spent that effort on something else.
3. There are currently a lot of hams that look down on no-code
Techs as some kind of lower order of being; along with this comes
the general assumption that anybody with a recent call is a
clueless nocoded. We can't afford this kind of factionalism. By
removing the code requirement, we'd soon have no-code Extras with
1x2 calls around (of course, we have functional no-code Extras now,
who couldn't copy at even 5WPM..) Eventually, there'd be no way to
tell coded hams from no-coders (unless you're in a CW QSO with them,
and even then it *might* be mechanically generated and decoded!)
4. The existence of the code requirement inhibits any radical
simplification of the license structure, which I think we need.
Five classes and a jumble of privileges is just too complicated.
I think we ought to have a two level license structure, entry
and general; having the HF code requirement means that we have
to have at least 4 license classes in any sane system.
5. Finally, I believe that the Morse requirement may actually be
resulting in fewer people learning Morse than otherwise; once the
people I refer to in point 1 get into the hobby. they have a chance
to see how useful Morse can still be for many of the things hams do;
once people see that it *is* useful, they're likely to learn it.
Requiring it simply keeps them out of the hobby altogether, and
they'll never learn Morse.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
WB3U
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>>And as radio continues to mature, the usefulness of CW is now
>>>on the outgoing tide.
>> Amateur Radio itself is on the outgoing tide. That's no
>> reason to destroy it prematurely.
>Ever occur to you that those tides might be somehow linked? ;-)
Of course they're linked. The services we once provided
through CW, technical expertise, emergency preparedness,
etc. etc. are no longer needed. CW attracts attention within
our own ranks as the most noticeable vestige of the need to
meet the goals prescribed by an F.C.C. of a bygone era, but
the fact is, the entire service is obsolete. The more we
argue about these issues, the more eivdent that becomes to the
rest of the world.
Some time back, I asked what we could do as (generic) amateurs
that a commercial service would not be willing to do better in
exchange for use of our frequencies. NO ONE had an answer to my
question. Similarly, when I asked more recently what benefits
would accrue to our service through elimination of the Morse
requirement, NO ONE had an answer.
If you're looking for a link, this is it: CW isn't necessary,
Amateur Radio isn't necessary, and none of us are necessary.
Enjoy it while you can. The free ride won't last forever.
73,
Jack WB3U
Cecil Moore
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>I wonder why he doesn't want to put his expertise
>to use on VHF/UHF?
Hi Jack, because *I* want to do HF experimentation and didn't ask
him to help me on vhf/uhf because I don't need any help there.
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>>This paragraph (Paragraph by Jim Cummings moved to below)
>>> totally defies rational thought. Even ignoring the
>>>flood of incoming CB'ers,
>>What flood of incoming CBers. Perhas you can elaborate
>>on whatever it is you think CB has to do with this.
>I'll be glad to, but first I'd like to know why you selected
>this particular phrase to question?
Why, because the constant phony threat that the elimination
of CW requirements will open up amateur radio to the entire
cadre of CBers is bull. No one is suggesting elimination of
theory tests and many (including myself) have suggested
ways to strengthen the test procedure to help eliminate
memorization for those questions that shouldn't relie on
memorizing answers, but rather on understanding concepts
(eg. the formula/equation type questions).
Jim Cummings said:
>>>>Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF
>>>>spectrum would result in little significant increase in the amateur
>>>>population, this not likely to have a significant effect upon the
>>>>bottom lines of these businesses and services.
> Are you saying that you
>agree with Jim's previous comment, or are you simply trying to
>find fault with one small part of what I said?
I actually disagree with Jim's statement. I'm sure
that elimination of the CW requirement will entice
a significant (albeit unpredictable) percent of no-code
techs to upgrade. That being the case, there would certainly
be some increase in sales of HF equipment. That's Economics
101, but it doesn't change anything. If there is a finite maximum
number of amateurs that should be lcensed, then please state that as
your opinion, otherwise, the mere threat that many might upgrade is
not a valid reason to retain CW testing. If you want a roadblock to
keep others out, then make the roadblock related to contemporary
communications, not a mode which sees less usage as time goes on.
Heck, I could argue that an increase in hams on HF might be a good
thing just to help foster greater use of CW on a voluntary basis. If
the bands are as saturated as some suggest, then using CW will
continue without forcing people to learn it.
Regardless, I still would like to see your rational for your
statement: "Even ignoring the flood of incoming CB'ers"
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>>Good reasons? How about *any* reasons? The Morse requirement
>>>has played a major role in shaping Amateur Radio. What is its
>>>elimination intended to accomplish?
>>>Jack WB3U
>>How about: What is its continued test requirement intended
>>to acomplish.
>The burden of proof is not on those who wish to see the basic
>nature of Amateur Radio remain the same. Change brings risk,
>and risk must be justified through perceived benefits. If
>you can't do that, the change has no foreseeable merit.
This is the governmental mindset that results in dumb legislation
never being overturned. The reality should be that much
government regulation should have a sunset aspect to
it so that continuation of the regulation is merited only
by showing it is still relavent. The burden of proof,
in any case, as it relates to testing reqirements must be
on those that claim the reuirement is still relavent.
Simply trying to allege that there is a legal basis for
burden of proof is without merit in this discussion.
>>The role of CW in amateur communications is primarily a past
>>tense relationship to contemporary radio communications.
>No it's only obsolete for communications funded through large
>government or commercial budgets.
It is simply no longer used in the commercial and military
areas. Please tell us where it is used in other than
amateur bands.
As to costs, as another pointed out, to suggest that all
hams must conform to a least common denominator mode
because other nations aren't as economically well off is
arrogance of the ugly American variety.
>>Yes...hams still do CW, but they are, almost the only remaining
>>users of the mode.
>That's because we are one of the few services in which individual,
>disposable income must be sufficient build a transmit/receive
>site capable of reliable, worldwide communications.
Nothing at all in FCC or international treaty requires any ham
to own or build worldwide capable equipment.
>>As such, there is no longer a need for ALL amateurs to learn
>>CW since the liklihood of needing CW expertise for
>>any emergency today is almost totally nonexistent.
>"Almost" isn't good enough. Amateurs are the last resort for
>emergency communications, not the first. As such, the conditions
>in which our work is actually necessary, not merely convenient,
>may be a far cry from the norm.
Sorry...almost is good enough. If it wasn't then we'd train
every cop, every fireman, ad naseum on CPR...but we
don't because the costs are outweighed by the requirement.
Same is true today for amateur CW knowledge. Th prospect
that one ham out of 500,000 or more might have an emergence
QSO via CW is not a valid reason to mandate that every
new ham learn CW. In fact, there hasn't been a true
emergency involving CW use for several years. It just
doesn't happen that way anymore.
>>Requests for even one recent emergency situation that involved
>>a ham using CW have brought up no examples.
>That only means recent situations didn't require it, not that
>such a situation won't occur. In a truly desperate natural
>disaster or other dire emergency, all bets are off. Preparedness
>demands that a ham be able to access as many modes as possible,
>and the simpler, the better.
Same comment as above.
Jim Cummings
>
>>Considering that the increase of no-code amateur into the HF
>>spectrum would result in little significant increase in the amateur
>>population, this not likely to have a significant effect upon the
>>bottom lines of these businesses and services.
>
>flood of incoming CB'ers, every ham who wanted to migrate from VHF
>to HF would have to buy an HF rig first. The difference to the
>bottom line would be *huge*.
>
In 1992, Canada restructured its amateur radio certification system. The
significant change was the introduction of the Basic Qualification. This
is a written examination and everyone must take this examination in order
to apply for a licence in the amateur service. The holder of this
qualification is allowed to use all amateur allocations above 30 MHz,
with a maximum of 250 watts, and the transmitter must be commercially
marketted for amateur operation. (In order to gain access to the MF/HF
bands, one needs only take a 5 wpm or 12 wpm test - no further written
examinations are required). The result of this change has been an
increase of growth, in the order of 11 per cent per year until now.
Recently, it has been determined that the increase has dropped to about 4
per cent growth. I suspect that it will not be long until it will be at
pre-1992 levels - one to two percent growth per annum.
What drove this growth and why is it falling off? Obviously, the fact
that Canada has a no-code licence was the incentive. But I am willing to
postulate that most of those who undertook to become amateurs during this
period came from the pent-up demand of the CB wannabees. The
availability of the no-code program for the past four years has satisfied
the demands of those of a certain sector of the public - those who were
CBers and wanted to be hams, but were prevented from doing so because of
the code, (for whatever reason) no longer had to contend with learning
the code. Now that this sector of the public has been satisfied, the
rate of increase has diminished.
So what does this mean? If the Morse code is dropped entirely, then I
don't anticipate a significant increase in the population of amateur
licensee resulting from the mythical CB hordes. I don't foresee a
significant change because I believe that the invasion has already
started and there is strong evidence that it has waned. I suspect that
the same socialogical event is happening in the U.S. with the
introduction of the no-code Technician license. That is to say that the
no-code Technician licence in the U.S. is sopping up the demand from
those who were CBers and wanted to be amateurs, but did not wish to
submit to a Morse code examination. Granted, some of them will wish to
get the authorization to operate on HF, and can't wait for the regulatory
changes for the abolishment of Morse code. But most will be satisfied
with their VHF-only privileges.
Therefore, if Morse code testing is abolished, I don't anticipate a
significant increase in the amateur population, because the mythical CB
hordes will have already come and gone and been absorbed. Obviously,
there will be an increase in the sales of HF equipment because of the
demands heretofor denied due to Morse code testing for HF access. But,
this demand will be short term and over the long run, will not be
substantially significant i.e., the manufacturers and retailers have
increased sales for a short while - a year or two at the most, then those
figures will level off to about the same level as it what it was prior to
the abolishment of Morse code testing for authorization to operate on the
amateur allocations below 30 MHz.
In conclusion, there will not be a significant increase in the amateur
population once Morse code is completely abolished, particularly compared
to the increases that were, in Canada, and are, in the United States. In
addition, the increased usage of HF equipment will not be by new amateurs
from the mythical CB hordes, but by those hordes that have already been
absorbed into the hobby due to the introduction of the VHF-only, no-code
licence. There will be an increase in sales for a short period, but that
increase will be relatively insignificant over the long term.
>>>My question is: What benefits to amateur radio are sought by those
>>>nonamateurs and minority of amateurs who want CW testing removed for
>>>access to HF?
>
>>Absolutely none.
>
>Thank you for your honosty.
>
Honesty had nothing to do with it - logic was the order of the day. As I
stated earlier, most of those who wish to be amateurs without having to
take the code have done so or will do so. Therefore, abolition of Morse
code testing will not affect non-amateurs one iota because they have no
interest in the amateur service. In so far as the "minority of amateurs
who want CW testing removed", the point on the minority is debatabele.
None the less, most of those who advocate the abolition of Morse code
testing have all ready done so. Therefore, if Morse code were abolished,
their status would not change at all. Therefore, "absolutely none" was
the only available answer to the given question, a contrary response
would have been illogical.
Paul Erickson
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) writes:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
Bill, I would be extremely suprised if this is correct. Is this a U.S.
phenominon ? I know all police, fireman, and other peace officers in Canada
are trained in cpr. If for no other reason than the cost of one wrongful
death lawsuit would cover a significant percentage of the training costs.
cheers, Paul
VE7CQK
email: pa...@wizard.ucs.sfu.ca
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4ov5qq$8...@crc-news.doc.ca>, Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
>
> Regretably, this is not true. Morse code is a means of transmitting
> information. Other modes have supplanted this means much more
> effectively.
>
transmitting information.
>
>>
>>>Since the allocation of bands for particular services, the original
>>>need for Morse code testing is moot. Therefore, Morse code testing
>>>no longer legitimate.
>>
>>False premise, false conclusion.
>>
> Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise is
> false, the conclusion still stands.
>
proved false? Now THAT's what philosophers call 'begging the question'.
>
> Exactly and Morse code is not a verification of operator copetence and
> qualifications.
The extensive use of CW on our HF bands makes Morse code skills relevant
to competent HF operating.
> interference on the next door neighbour's stereo. Morse code testing is
> a confirmation that the Pavlovian conditioning has taken effect - hear
> "didah", write the letter "A".
The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
> In contradiction to Long's opinion, the difference between a digital rig
> and a CW is trivial.
OK, but he was taking about systems not rigs.
>>>>Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC countries using
>>>digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the view
>>>that Morse code is a common mode of communications.
I did better than that without the aid of a TNC, computer or even a DX net.
Individual DXCC totals are not a good way to guage mode usage as evidenced
by the incorrect conclusion you've drawn from your total.
> But the justification for testing is not based on usefulness or even
> popularity, but on need. In the context of advanced communciations
> modes, the use of Morse code is also optional, there is no discernable
> need for it.
>
Hence CW testing is not required for VHF and up where most of the advanced
communication modes are used, both for the commercial and amateur services.
Now, what benefit to amateur radio are you seeking in suggesting CW testing
be ceased?
>>
>>73,
>>Jack WB3U
>
> 73 and live better digitally
> Jim, VE3XJ
>
73 Joe VO1NA
James W. KELLEY
In article <4ovul3$r...@crash.microserve.net>,
WB3U <ja...@pinetree.microserve.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever occur to you that those tides might be somehow linked? ;-)
>
>Of course they're linked. The services we once provided
>through CW, technical expertise, emergency preparedness,
>etc. etc. are no longer needed. CW attracts attention within
>our own ranks as the most noticeable vestige of the need to
>meet the goals prescribed by an F.C.C. of a bygone era, but
>the fact is, the entire service is obsolete. The more we
>argue about these issues, the more eivdent that becomes to the
>rest of the world.
The fact that Morse encoded CW communications are an antiquated mode has
been evident to the rest of the world for quite some time now. It is
only the amateur radio service that continues to be ignorant of this.
>Some time back, I asked what we could do as (generic) amateurs
>that a commercial service would not be willing to do better in
>exchange for use of our frequencies. NO ONE had an answer to my
>question.
The best answer to this is one that just about anyone with the slightest
awareness of amateur radio could answer. That is, that amateur radio
provides a communications service as a backup to all other forms of
communication, and it does so completely without charge to anyone.
The amateur radio spectrum is a National Park, and we are the caretakers.
The question here is whether concessionaires will be allowed to provide
some of the services that volunteers do now. Perhaps some day they will
be allowed to share our spectrum with us, but I suspect not to the
exclusion of the "volunteer" force. We provide a free service, the
"concessionaires" will not.
The latetest bit of Yellow Journalism from the ARRL has produced a great
deal of over reaction from the ham community. If you read the proceedings
of the Warren Richards committee, you'll find that they have been looking
extensively at the 148-149.9 and 401-406 MHz bands, also the Metaids
radiosonde band, and the UHF broadcast bands. There has been, thus far no
discussion of allocating the amateur bands for Little LEOs. You can bet
there will be now, but one thing stands out from reading the minutes of
these meetings: these people (the committee members) are informed and
capable, they are looking at a very big picture with great attention to
detail, and they do not appear to be in the habit of making hasty and
illconsidered decisions. Most of all they do not seem to have a
penchant to give away the amateur bands.
The letter writing campaign may have been misdirected and premature,
particularly if it results in a bad rap for amateur radio.
>If you're looking for a link, this is it: CW isn't necessary,
>Amateur Radio isn't necessary, and none of us are necessary.
>Enjoy it while you can. The free ride won't last forever.
I would state it a little differently. Morse should no longer be
required. The Amateur radio spectrum is a natural resource and it's
preservationists are the amateur radio operators - it is no more of a
necessity than a wildlife preserve. It should be enjoyed in perpetuity
by those who appreciate it for what it is.
With respect to the "free ride" comment - most people here advocate
demonstrating their qualifications by examination, thereby earning their
privileges. The ride is not entirely free.
>73,
>Jack WB3U
73 de Jim, KE6JPO
Rich McAllister
>Some time back, I asked what we could do as (generic) amateurs
>that a commercial service would not be willing to do better in
>exchange for use of our frequencies. NO ONE had an answer to my
>question.
I don't remember seeing this. Answers seem pretty darn obvious to me. Free
training and experimentation (n.b. experiments are not necessarily *novel*)
seem to me to be pretty hard to do in a commercial setting. And, while I
could imagine a commercial enterprise *promising* to provide emergency
communications in exchange for the frequencies, I'd be highly skeptical that
they would deliver. Competitive pressure would obviously force them to do
the absolute minimum to keep their license, and given the general reluctance
to fund regulatory agencies these days, that minimum would be small indeed.
Why have parks when commercial enterprises would be willing to
do "better" (better access, nicer facilities, creative advertisements
to enhance the outdoor experience) with the same land?
>Similarly, when I asked more recently what benefits
>would accrue to our service through elimination of the Morse
>requirement, NO ONE had an answer.
Nonsense, I've posted my list several times (most recently yesterday)
and I know others have addressed this issue.
Rich
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
WB5RUE
In article <4onoo4$i...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Cecil Moore
<kg...@primenet.com> writes:
>WB5RUE <wb5...@aol.com> wrote:
>: What I don't understand is that if they don't
>: have the time to learn CW how are they going to have the time for
Amateur
>: Radio?
>
>Hi Kevin, this seems to be one of the side-effects of too much Morse
code,
>not being able to see the entire picture. CW and phone are as unrelated
>as fishing and football. Some people hate one and love the other.
>
>These "Rocket Scientists" are just not going to do something they hate!
>In the case of Dr. Williamson, his perceived pleasure of HF phone is not
>great enough to overcome his perceived pain of CW so don't expect him
>to contribute his considerable talents to a service that requires him
>to submit to hazing before he can participate in what he enjoys. After
>all, he is not a masochist.
>
>73, Cecil, KG7BK
>
>
You missed the entire point of this post. Just like most others on the
no-code
side of the issue, you take what was written and twist it around.
What I asked was that if the don't have the time to learn CW how are they
going
to have time for Amateur Radio in general? There was nothing in my post
or
question about whether or not they enjoyed code.
Pain of CW? Is that like President Clinton feeling your pain? Now he's
saying
"I feel your Gas Pain...."
Hazing? I don't think so. It is part of the entrance exam. Surely he
can relate
to that. He can't not take a portion of a GRE or SAT exam just because he
doesn't
like it. They'll laugh him out of the school.
Kevin, WB5RUE
The world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.
Jim Cummings
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>In article <4ov5qq$8...@crc-news.doc.ca>, Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
>>
>> Regretably, this is not true. Morse code is a means of transmitting
>> information. Other modes have supplanted this means much more
>> effectively.
>>
>And the internet beats them all, but there's more to amateur radio than just
>transmitting information.
But I was not addressing other means of transmitting information outside
of the amateur service. If Craig wishes to debate the relative
effectiveness of amateur radio compared the internet, he is cordually
invited to do so.
>>
>>>
>>>>Since the allocation of bands for particular services, the original
>>>>need for Morse code testing is moot. Therefore, Morse code testing
>>>>no longer legitimate.
>>>
>>>False premise, false conclusion.
>>>
>> Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise is
>> false, the conclusion still stands.
>>
>So any conclusion drawn from a premise is true unless the premise is
>proved false? Now THAT's what philosophers call 'begging the question'.
No, that is not what I said. Since Long failed to present any evidence
that the premise was incorrect, the conclusion still stood. Craig is
heartily invited once more to debate the merits of either the premise or
the conclusion.
>>
>> Exactly and Morse code is not a verification of operator copetence and
>> qualifications.
>
>The extensive use of CW on our HF bands makes Morse code skills relevant
>to competent HF operating.
>
No it is not because there is no regulatory requirement for the use of
Morse code in amateur radio. Like any other mode, being it SSB, SSTV,
FSTV, Baudot, Clover, satellite operations or whatever, the fact remains
that no amateur is forced to use it, it is selected by choice.
Moreover, Morse code's popularity does not justify for continued testing
prior to being authorized to operate on the amateur bands.
>> interference on the next door neighbour's stereo. Morse code testing is
>> a confirmation that the Pavlovian conditioning has taken effect - hear
>> "didah", write the letter "A".
>
>The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
>specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
How so? Pavlov's dog was conditioned to drool upon a stimulus. Decoding
Morse code is nothing different, hear "didah", write the letter "A". It
matters little if the response to the stimulus is drooling or writing, it
is still a conditioned response.
>
>> In contradiction to Long's opinion, the difference between a digital rig
>> and a CW is trivial.
>
>OK, but he was taking about systems not rigs.
>
I beg to differ, he was addressing digital rigs, in response to my
original posting. In any case, if we wish to discuss digital systems,
there are many inexpensive means of using some of the modern encoding
schemes with some software, which can be FTPed, and a simple homebrew
modem. About 20 bucks will get one on Baudot and Amtor.
>>>>>Considering that I have confirmed 262 DXCC countries using
>>>>digital techniques, this achievement alone questions the view
>>>>that Morse code is a common mode of communications.
>
>I did better than that without the aid of a TNC, computer or even a DX net.
>Individual DXCC totals are not a good way to guage mode usage as evidenced
>by the incorrect conclusion you've drawn from your total.
>
Popularity is not the issue. I was countering the cultural snobbery that
abounds in amateur radio of those who claim that in order to communicate
internationally, Morse code is a must because amateurs in many nations
are technologically backwards. As I indicated in an earlier posting,
this is balderdash. Besides, since there is no requirement to
communicate internationally, then obligatory knowledge of Morse code is
not obligatory. If the amateur wishes to communicate internationally
using Morse code, he should by all means learn it. But that does not
justify that everybody should learn it by government fiat.
>> But the justification for testing is not based on usefulness or even
>> popularity, but on need. In the context of advanced communciations
>> modes, the use of Morse code is also optional, there is no discernable
>> need for it.
>>
>
>Hence CW testing is not required for VHF and up where most of the advanced
>communication modes are used, both for the commercial and amateur services.
>
.. and it is no longer needed on HF because there are many advanced
communciations modes also, such as pactor, Clover and automatical link
establishement. Therefore, in like manner as for VHF, all Morse code
testing should be abolished because there are much better modes to use to
establish communcations. Again, if one wishes to use Morse code, by all
means, study it and use it. But that does not justify mandatory
knowledge of the Morse code.
>Now, what benefit to amateur radio are you seeking in suggesting CW testing
>be ceased?
>
Since Morse code is no longer a valid indicator of operator competence,
those who wish to study to become amateurs will no longer have to be
burdened with having to spend time on learning the Morse code. That time
could be much more profitably spent investigating and learning more
relevant aspects of the the hobby. In addition, so long as amateurs are
required to learn Morse code, the public perception will continue that we
are not using our mandate to investingate the state of the art of radio
wisely. Instead, we will be viewed as preservationists of arcane
communications modes. As a result, it will be more difficult to defend
our allocations because the will be percieved as being the preserve of
outdated technologies.
Michael P. Deignan
In article <4osn7p$q...@usenet.pa.dec.com>,
Todd Little <lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>The elimination is only intended to accomplish the rather obvious goal
>of ensuring that regulations or legislation are still relevant to the purposes
>they orginally served. Just like drivers tests don't require hand cranking
>an engine or using a manual transmission.
The point you overlook is there are very few hand cranked and manual
transmission automobiles on the road today. There are still a significant
number of CW operators, especially from other countries.
Oh, and not all states have done away with a manual transmission test
if you want to drive a stick....
MD
--
--
-- "I have more guns than I need, and less guns than I want." -- Phil Graam
--
-- If you don't like my opinions, that's just too damn bad.
Michael P. Deignan
In article <4ourqo$f...@usenet.pa.dec.com>,
Todd Little <lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>Ever occur to you that those tides might be somehow linked? ;-)
Doubtful.
This is the same argument that pro-codeless supporters used in the
late 80's to justify reducing requirements. If your yardstick of
measurement is quantity, then sure, the codeless license has been
a success -- any time you lower the hurdle more runners will be
able to jump over it.
However, I fail to see how an examination for a measly few
megahertz of spectrum is destroying amateur radio today, when a
codeless license for the "hoards of technical and professional
people who would just get involved if they didn't have to do the
code" is already in place that gives access to 99% of all amateur
spectrum.
Radio, as a medium, has pretty much become a has-been, with the
exception of commuter travel.
Radio might have been the "high tech" of the 1950's, but today
its an old, antiquated form of communication. Newer technologies
deliver information and communication services faster and with
more accuracy.
Amateur radio >will< die. It will probably die in my lifetime,
or at the very least be relagated to the role of a quaint
spectacle that people still get involved in for historical
purposes, sort of the way people still get involved in
reenacting historical battles.
Dana Myers
>would accrue to our service through elimination of the Morse
>requirement, NO ONE had an answer.
Hold on one, Jack, I remember when you asked this, and I remember
anwering. Perhaps my reply didn't make it to your site (I'm
confident that it did), so I'll repeat an excerpt right here:
Subject: Re: No CODE No CW on HF
From: my...@West.Sun.COM (Dana Myers)
Date: 1996/05/20
Message-Id: <4nof4b$l...@abyss.West.Sun.COM>
References: <4n3u9b$19...@mule2.mindspring.com> <4nncfu$5...@crash.microserve.net> <4nnusk$h...@abyss.West.Sun.COM> <4noc0h$b...@crash.microserve.net>
Organization: SunSoft South, Los Angeles, CA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
In article <4noc0h$b...@crash.microserve.net>,
WB3U <ja...@pinetree.microserve.com> wrote:
> my...@West.Sun.COM (Dana Myers) wrote:
>>WB3U <ja...@pinetree.microserve.com> wrote:
[...]
>BTW, you still haven't answered my previous question. What is
>it that you believe would be accomplished by elimination of the
>Morse requirement for HF radiotelephone privelages?
Not to dodge the question, but some of the least technical amateurs
I've met have been hard-core CW Extras. I'm not saying all Extras
aren't technicial, nor am I saying that all CW enthusiasts aren't
technical. What I'm saying is that it is pretty clear that CW
doesn't make one technically adept; it is an independent skill.
Now... read the next paragraph carefully...
So, maybe it is my own bias towards technoids that makes me think
the service would benefit if an extended technicial (or even operating
pratice) exam was offered as an alternative to 1(C). In other
words, if Morse code floats your boat, you can pass 1(C). If
you're a tech-head, you can pass 5(A) and get the same credit.
Personally, I look forward to the day amateurs can get past the
us/them attitude with respect to CW. It is just a mode, and a cool
mode at that, but it shouldn't be the litmus test of good and bad.
Perhaps this answer wasn't to your satisfaction, but it was an
answer. Any comments?
--
* Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j | Views expressed here are mine and should *
* (310) 348-6043 | not be interpreted or represented as *
* Dana....@West.Sun.Com | those of Sun Microsystems, Inc. *
Bill Sohl
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) wrote:
>In article <4osn7p$q...@usenet.pa.dec.com>,
> Todd Little <lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>>The elimination is only intended to accomplish the rather obvious goal
>>of ensuring that regulations or legislation are still relevant to the purposes
>>they orginally served. Just like drivers tests don't require hand cranking
>>an engine or using a manual transmission.
>The point you overlook is there are very few hand cranked and manual
>transmission automobiles on the road today.
Not true as to manual gearboxes. Sales of cars with manual
gearboxes are still a significant percent of total sales.
>There are still a significant
>number of CW operators, especially from other countries.
Your point is?
>Oh, and not all states have done away with a manual transmission test
>if you want to drive a stick....
Please identify any state which makes that distinction.
Additionally, even if there is a state or two that makes such a
distinction, it ONLY impacts their own licensed drivers.
My NJ license is good in every state of the union to drive a stick
or automatic.
WB3U
>>I wonder why he doesn't want to put his expertise
>>to use on VHF/UHF?
>Hi Jack, because *I* want to do HF experimentation and didn't ask
>him to help me on vhf/uhf because I don't need any help there.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why can't he help you
anyway? After all, *you're* the one who wants to experiment
on HF, and *you're* the one with the privelages to do so.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>r...@urth.eng.sun.com (Rich McAllister) wrote:
>>Nonsense, I've posted my list several times (most recently
>>yesterday) and I know others have addressed this issue.
>I haven't seen it. Was it posted in this thread? Perhaps you
>could forward a copy to me in e-mail (I'll respond in the group).
Rich, nevermind, I just found it under a different Subject.
If you don't mind, I'll post my reponse to this thread instead.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>Why, because the constant phony threat that the elimination
>of CW requirements will open up amateur radio to the entire
>cadre of CBers is bull. No one is suggesting elimination of
>theory tests and many (including myself) have suggested
>ways to strengthen the test procedure to help eliminate
>memorization for those questions that shouldn't relie on
>memorizing answers, but rather on understanding concepts
>(eg. the formula/equation type questions).
The usefulness of tougher theory exams to eliminate CB'ers
and similar types requires that you first believe in the
"filter" effect of entrance requirements. I thought this
effect was deemed non-existent by most no-code HF proponents?
At any rate, considering that every CB'er I ever met absolutely
detested Morse, I'm not convinced that tougher theory provides
the same deterrent. Nothing makes me happier than to hear a
trash-mouthed CB'er say "If it wasn't for that dang code ..."
>If there is a finite maximum number of amateurs that should be
>licensed, then please state that as your opinion,
No, I'm fine with the idea that anyone who can qualify should
receive the privelages.
>If you want a roadblock to keep others out, then make the
>roadblock related to contemporary communications, not a mode
>which sees less usage as time goes on.
Use of Morse on the Amateur bands is not waning. Our needs,
and therefore the actual usefulness of Morse, cannot be
evaluated on the basis of other services. Also, considering
that theory exams alone may not be sufficient to maintain the
quality of the service, there is no "modern" substitute for
the skill required to be demonstrated by a Morse exam. A
typing test won't do.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
>>Some time back, I asked what we could do as (generic) amateurs
>>that a commercial service would not be willing to do better in
>>exchange for use of our frequencies. NO ONE had an answer to my
>>question.
>I don't remember seeing this. Answers seem pretty darn obvious
>to me. Free training
Companies do that all the time. In fact, they pay employees while
they're trained.
>and experimentation (n.b. experiments are not necessarily *novel*)
>seem to me to be pretty hard to do in a commercial setting.
I'm not sure what you mean by "n.b.", but experiments and RF
research are performed constantly by industry. In fact,
industry is considerably better equipped to provide legitimately
meaningful results and test data than most Amateurs. How many
new patents have been awarded to Amateurs working out of their
garages in the last twenty years?
>And, while I could imagine a commercial enterprise *promising*
>to provide emergency communications in exchange for the
>frequencies, I'd be highly skeptical that they would deliver.
A similar situation already exists on ITFS channels and it's
worked admirably. Those channels can only be licensed to
legitimate, accredited educational institutions. They are
interlaced with commercial MMDS channels. MMDS operators
lease the channels from the educators, and are required by law
to make available a certain number of hours per week of
programming time for educational use. This is a real boon to
struggling schools, particularly as the lease agreements often
include provision for the MMDS operator to build a television
studio on school property and to provide a link between the
studio and the transmit site.
>Competitive pressure would obviously force them to do the
>absolute minimum to keep their license, and given the general
>reluctance to fund regulatory agencies these days, that minimum
>would be small indeed.
This certainly hasn't been a problem for ITFS. Operators and
educators alike are raking in the dough. The operators have
no intention of risking their frequencies for a mere $250,000
worth of equipment dedicated to the educators.
>Why have parks when commercial enterprises would be willing to
>do "better" (better access, nicer facilities, creative
>advertisements to enhance the outdoor experience) with the
>same land?
Given the scenario you've described, why indeed?
>>Similarly, when I asked more recently what benefits
>>would accrue to our service through elimination of the Morse
>>requirement, NO ONE had an answer.
>Nonsense, I've posted my list several times (most recently
>yesterday) and I know others have addressed this issue.
I haven't seen it. Was it posted in this thread? Perhaps you
could forward a copy to me in e-mail (I'll respond in the group).
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>As radio matured, the usefuness of Morse expanded.
>Other modes have supplanted this means much more effectively.
Not for Amateur Radio. The nature of our privately-funded
stations demands simplicity. Cost must be considered if
operators are to be enabled on the basis of personal
qualifications rather than financial wherewithall.
>In addition, there is little or no evidence that Morse
>code plays as significant a role as it once may have in
>providing communications assistance during emergencies.
That's because the role of Amateur Radio in emergencies is
nearly obsolete. If you want to describe situations to the
contrary, they must include the criteria that Amateur Radio
was essential, not merely convenient or helpful. They must
be situations in which life and death were at stake and for
which no government or commercial services could have
provided the necessary communications.
>Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise
>is false, the conclusion still stands.
It's false because you've denied the need for testing only on
the basis of one particular use of Morse. You have failed
to negate the others.
>The fact that amateurs do not undertake to equip their stations
>with the latest in technology is their choice, but that hardly
>justifies the continuance of Morse code testing.
Until you or someone else offers to equip every Amateur station
with this technology, it is not up to you to decide that
acquisition is a matter of choice. CW continues to offer the
simplest, most inexpensive means for those who are competent
and qualified to participate effectively as Amateur Radio
operators.
>Exactly and Morse code is not a verification of operator
>copetence and qualifications.
It is if you understand why this skill is beneficial to
the Amateur service.
>Seriously, the addition of a padder capacitor in the frequency
>determining portion of the transmitter is all that is necessary
>to provide fo the frequency shift necessary for most digital
>communications.
Who said anything about frequency shift? You've left out the
most important parts - an encoder, a decoder, an input device,
an output device, a data processor and a storage device. Any
ONE of these is a significant addition to what would otherwise
be a simple CW transmitter.
>The point was made in riposte to the assertion that Morse code
>is necessary in order to communicate with amateur living in nations
>that are not a technically evolved as ours.
I didn't say that. The issue is numbers, not nations. Your DX
achievement (which I respect, by the way) is simply insufficient
to verify a significant percentage of compatible stations.
>But the justification for testing is not based on usefulness or
>even popularity, but on need.
You can't separate these concepts that easily. Morse is useful,
popular, and necessary to the well-being of the Amateur service.
>In the context of advanced communciations modes, the use of Morse
code is also optional, there is no discernable need for it.
The fact that YOU can't discern the need doesn't validate this
statement.
73,
Jack WB3U
Cecil A. Moore~
>What I asked was that if the don't have the time to learn CW how are they
>going to have time for Amateur Radio in general?
That's a really ridiculous, meaningless question. How's someone
going to have time to drive a car if they don't have time to
ride a horse? There is absolutely no relationship between Morse
code and RF voice modes. The military, commercial SSB, AM,
FM, and TV all seem to survive just fine without CW. Morse code
is so slow, I don't see how anyone has time for it. :-)
>Hazing? I don't think so. It is part of the entrance exam. Surely he
>can relate to that. He can't not take a portion of a GRE or SAT exam
>just because he doesn't like it. They'll laugh him out of the school.
I'm going to share a secret with you, Kevin. The GRE or SAT does
not require obsolete skills. I took them. No questions in Latin,
no questions about how to skin a woolly mammoth, and wonder,
of wonders, there is no mention of Morse code. The GRE and SAT
exams would be worthless if they were designed by the same
people who require Morse code for a ham license.
WB3U
>>The burden of proof is not on those who wish to see the
>>basic nature of Amateur Radio remain the same. Change brings
>>risk, and risk must be justified through perceived benefits.
>>If you can't do that, the change has no foreseeable merit.
>The burden of proof, in any case, as it relates to testing
>reqirements must be on those that claim the reuirement is
>still relavent.
Change can only be justified through a logical analysis of
risk VS benefit. This is a valid concept and it is
fundamental to determining the advisability of ANY decision.
It's entirely accurate to say that someone who can describe no
foreseeable benefits has no logical basis for proposing change.
>It is simply no longer used in the commercial and military
>areas. Please tell us where it is used in other than
>amateur bands.
Its use by the Amateur service is all I'm concerned with.
>As to costs, as another pointed out, to suggest that all
>hams must conform to a least common denominator mode
>because other nations aren't as economically well off is
>arrogance of the ugly American variety.
I didn't say that, but I still don't agree with your
conclusion. It's not arrogance to want to insure that all
people, regardless of their financial status, can communicate
through Amateur Radio. That applies to Americans as well,
and there's nothing ugly about it. Perhaps real arrogance
would be evidenced by someone who operates digital modes with
no concern for the exclusion it creates among Amateurs of
lesser means?
>Nothing at all in FCC or international treaty requires any ham
>to own or build worldwide capable equipment.
The need for such a requirement is preempted by the fact that
lower license classes with poorer CW skills have traditionally
been restricted to VHF and above. Amateurs who progress beyond
that are granted HF privelages, use of which by qualified
operators is assumed to provide international communications.
>Th prospect that one ham out of 500,000 or more might have
>an emergence QSO via CW is not a valid reason to mandate that
>every new ham learn CW.
Bill, if that ham's effort was needed to save a life, I don't
care how many hours new hams have to spend learning code in
order to be able to communicate with him. I also don't care
if they go their whole lives without ever using Morse for that
purpose. In fact, that's what I hope for.
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
r...@urth.eng.sun.com (Rich McAllister) wrote:
>1. Despite the vast improvement of the no-code Tech, I still
>find when talking to people that I think would be good prospects
>for ham radio that they ask "is Morse Code still required?"
>When I explain the situation, they lose interest ...
>I think it's true that somebody who stays out of ham radio
>because of this perception has a low enough level of motivation
>that they might not become hams anyway. But it's very important
>that people like this -- who tend to be articulate and often
>politically involved -- have a good opinion of amateur radio.
You're proposing to eliminate the Morse requirement in order to
buy the affections of unmotivated persons who will nevertheless
have nothing more than a passing curiousity regarding our service.
- BENEFIT DENIED -
>2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
>license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening
>to tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting
>on the air, building things, or studying something really new.
>We'd be better off if they spent that effort on something else.
Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
on the air. Not only have you failed to prove that time spent
on its improvement is less valuable than the other pursuits,
it's the only one that takes nothing away from air time.
- BENEFIT DENIED -
>3. There are currently a lot of hams that look down on no-code
> Techs as some kind of lower order of being;
Abolishing Morse will not abolish bigotry. Even reducing the
service to a single, exam-free license class won't accomplish
that.
- BENEFIT DENIED -
>4. The existence of the code requirement inhibits any radical
> simplification of the license structure, which I think we need.
The retention of a Morse requirement would not, in itself,
prevent reducing the structure to a single class of license.
- BENEFIT DENIED -
>5. Finally, I believe that the Morse requirement may actually
>be resulting in fewer people learning Morse than otherwise; once
>the people I refer to in point 1 get into the hobby. they have a
>chance to see how useful Morse can still be for many of the things
>hams do; once people see that it *is* useful, they're likely to
>learn it. Requiring it simply keeps them out of the hobby
>altogether, and they'll never learn Morse.
Morse is NOT required in order to become a ham. What you've
stated above is my primary reason for not objecting to the
present no-code license. This has nothing to do with
elimination of the Morse requirement for all HF privelages.
- BENEFIT DENIED -
Sorry Rich, you haven't proven your case. Every "benefit"
you've described above is either unsupported or the result of
a conclusion that is logically flawed.
73,
Jack WB3U
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4p26c2$d...@crc-news.doc.ca>, Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
>>>
>>And the internet beats them all, but there's more to amateur radio than just
>>transmitting information.
>
> But I was not addressing other means of transmitting information outside
> of the amateur service. If Craig wishes to debate the relative
> effectiveness of amateur radio compared the internet, he is cordually
> invited to do so.
data than any HF mode available. But who cares? Data transmission is
not the sole objective of HF amateur operations.
>>> Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise is
>>> false, the conclusion still stands.
>>>
>>So any conclusion drawn from a premise is true unless the premise is
>>proved false? Now THAT's what philosophers call 'begging the question'.
>
> No, that is not what I said. Since Long failed to present any evidence
> that the premise was incorrect, the conclusion still stood. Craig is
> heartily invited once more to debate the merits of either the premise or
> the conclusion.
Now thats what philosophers call 'saving face' while 'begging the question'.
>>The extensive use of CW on our HF bands makes Morse code skills relevant
>>to competent HF operating.
>>
> No it is not because there is no regulatory requirement for the use of
> Morse code in amateur radio.
No, people do it for enjoyment and satisfaction. So what?
> Like any other mode, being it SSB, SSTV,
> FSTV, Baudot, Clover, satellite operations or whatever, the fact remains
> that no amateur is forced to use it, it is selected by choice.
All these modes can be used on VHF/UHF.
> Moreover, Morse code's popularity does not justify for continued testing
> prior to being authorized to operate on the amateur bands.
It is only required for HF. Over 99.9% of the amateur frequency
allocations are available to anyone without a CW test.
>>The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
>>specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
>
> How so? Pavlov's dog was conditioned to drool upon a stimulus. Decoding
> Morse code is nothing different, hear "didah", write the letter "A". It
> matters little if the response to the stimulus is drooling or writing, it
> is still a conditioned response.
It is the nature of the response. Writing is a conscious process, drooling
is not.
>>> In contradiction to Long's opinion, the difference between a digital rig
>>> and a CW is trivial.
>>
>>OK, but he was taking about systems not rigs.
>>
> I beg to differ, he was addressing digital rigs,
What say Jack ? (It's probably better to ask him...)
in response to my
> original posting. In any case, if we wish to discuss digital systems,
> there are many inexpensive means of using some of the modern encoding
> schemes with some software, which can be FTPed, and a simple homebrew
> modem. About 20 bucks will get one on Baudot and Amtor.
Cost ain't the issue. It's simplicity of the communication system.
A CW transmission system can be build using one active component.
> Popularity is not the issue. I was countering the cultural snobbery that
> abounds in amateur radio of those who claim that in order to communicate
> internationally, Morse code is a must because amateurs in many nations
> are technologically backwards. As I indicated in an earlier posting,
> this is balderdash.
I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the sound corresponding
to the CW - -. -..- is understood by more HF amateurs than not.
> using Morse code, he should by all means learn it. But that does not
> justify that everybody should learn it by government fiat.
Not everyone has to learn it. It's only required for a tiny portion
of spectrum where is is extensively used anyway.
> .. and it is no longer needed on HF because there are many advanced
> communciations modes also, such as pactor, Clover and automatical link
> establishement.
But there's more to amateur radio than data transmission.
> Therefore, in like manner as for VHF, all Morse code
> testing should be abolished because there are much better modes to use to
> establish communcations.
How do you define better? These 'better' modes are even better on UHF!
> Since Morse code is no longer a valid indicator of operator competence,
CW is a valid indicator on HF.
> those who wish to study to become amateurs will no longer have to be
> burdened with having to spend time on learning the Morse code.
>That time
> could be much more profitably spent investigating and learning more
> relevant aspects of the the hobby.
Like what?
> In addition, so long as amateurs are
> required to learn Morse code, the public perception will continue that we
> are not using our mandate to investingate the state of the art of radio
> wisely.
VHF and up is where the new frontiers are, both for AR and commercial
services. Public already knows this.
> Instead, we will be viewed as preservationists of arcane
> communications modes. As a result, it will be more difficult to defend
> our allocations because the will be percieved as being the preserve of
> outdated technologies.
This can be countered by highlighting our VHF/UHF voice/data/satellite networks.
HF frequencies are NOT under threat... guess which ones are!
How will amateur radio benefit by removing the CW test?
> 73 and live better digitally
> Jim, VE3XJ
>
Better for whom?
Joe VO1NA
>
Jim Cummings
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>
>>>As radio matured, the usefuness of Morse expanded.
>
>>Other modes have supplanted this means much more effectively.
>
>Not for Amateur Radio. The nature of our privately-funded
>stations demands simplicity. Cost must be considered if
>operators are to be enabled on the basis of personal
>qualifications rather than financial wherewithall.
>
The point in fact is that most other users of the the radio frequency
spectrum use privately funded equipment as well. Therefore,
private ownership of station equipment is not a characteristic to
amateurs when compared to other users of the spectrum. The significant
difference between amateurs and other users of the spectrum is that we
are allowed to use equipment which is not type approved or type accepted.
As a result, amateurs are allowed to use commercially manufactured
equipment, but also home-brewed. Within that context, amateurs are
allowed to use all sorts of equipment ranging from the complex to the
simple. If we were to assume that the low end of the simplicity scale is
the use of Morse code, and this is all that the amateur can afford, so be
it. That is that individual personal choice based on a number of
factors. Yet, the fact that the individual has made a personal choice to
use a low end rig does not justify that everyone else should be so
burdened with a testing in Morse code when indeed Morse code
communications is neither obligatory or a valid measure of competence.
>>In addition, there is little or no evidence that Morse
>>code plays as significant a role as it once may have in
>>providing communications assistance during emergencies.
>
>That's because the role of Amateur Radio in emergencies is
>nearly obsolete. If you want to describe situations to the
>contrary, they must include the criteria that Amateur Radio
>was essential, not merely convenient or helpful. They must
>be situations in which life and death were at stake and for
>which no government or commercial services could have
>provided the necessary communications.
>
Agreed, but it is the pro-code testing advocates who claim that Morse
code is vital in emergencies. I agree with Long's view that Morse code's
role in emergency communications is often overstated because it is
virtually non-existant. This is another hole in the boat for continued
Morse code testing.
>>Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise
>>is false, the conclusion still stands.
>
>It's false because you've denied the need for testing only on
>the basis of one particular use of Morse. You have failed
>to negate the others.
>
That's because there are no others to negate. I am sure that Long read
my list of the reasons that are often used to justify Morse code, and I
summarized their inadequacies. I heartily invite him to post his list of
reasons for continued Morse code testing for examination by the rest.
>>The fact that amateurs do not undertake to equip their stations
>>with the latest in technology is their choice, but that hardly
>>justifies the continuance of Morse code testing.
>
>Until you or someone else offers to equip every Amateur station
>with this technology, it is not up to you to decide that
>acquisition is a matter of choice. CW continues to offer the
>simplest, most inexpensive means for those who are competent
>and qualified to participate effectively as Amateur Radio
>operators.
>
Again, the availability of equipment is a strawman. I would agree that
Morse code communications is simple, but that does not justify that
everyone one must have to submit to a government test in order to be able
to operate on the HF frequency. This use of CW operation, whether
because of financial constraints or by choice has no bearing on the
government's legitimate concern that amateurs are not a source of
interference to the other users of the radio frequency spectrum.
>>Exactly and Morse code is not a verification of operator
>>copetence and qualifications.
>
>It is if you understand why this skill is beneficial to
>the Amateur service.
>
It may very well be beneficial, and if one wishes to learn that skill, by
all means do so. But being beneficial does not equate to being vital,
and one does not need to know Morse code in order to be a competent
amateur.
>>Seriously, the addition of a padder capacitor in the frequency
>>determining portion of the transmitter is all that is necessary
>>to provide fo the frequency shift necessary for most digital
>>communications.
>
>Who said anything about frequency shift? You've left out the
>most important parts - an encoder, a decoder, an input device,
>an output device, a data processor and a storage device. Any
>ONE of these is a significant addition to what would otherwise
>be a simple CW transmitter.
>
Even if this were demonstrably true, so what? The fact that some Morse
code rigs are simple doesn't justify the need for Morse code testing.
The testing for a particular topic is not based on simplicity of the mode
of operation, it is based on the need. There is no need for testing an
individual's competence in Morse code when the use of that mode is
optional, not vital and does not measure the individual's competence.
By the way, if Long is looking for a cheap way to get on data
communications, I am sure with a little bit of scrounging, some of the
local computer stores will be glad to give away older 8088 machines. In
fact, it is hard to give away 286 boxes up here. None the less, they can
be had for almost nothing. Want a encoder/decoder? I would suggest that
he look in a recent issue of ARRL's Hints and Kinks - I recall that they
have a neat little circuit with a couple of opto-isolators and a couple
of other chips (XR2211, for the tone decoder, and a couple of others - it
was so long since I built it, I forget....). For software, FTP to the
IDRS site, or the ARRL (again, my memory fails me exactly on this point)
and search for some Baudot and Amtor software. Want packet? I recall
recently that there was a one chip modem circuit in recent issue of QST,
and they mentioned an FTP site to get the software for 1200 baud
operation. Costs? Probably 50 bucks. Is that comparable to a low end
rig? The cheapest rig that I know is the Ten-Tec Scout. I think is goes
for 500 bucks in the U.S. Therefore, the arguement that costs for an
equipping a station with digital communcations are significant doesn't
hold any water. Again, even if this was not true, that fact that digital
equipment might be expensive does not justify Morse code testing.
>>The point was made in riposte to the assertion that Morse code
>>is necessary in order to communicate with amateur living in nations
>>that are not a technically evolved as ours.
>
>I didn't say that. The issue is numbers, not nations. Your DX
>achievement (which I respect, by the way) is simply insufficient
>to verify a significant percentage of compatible stations.
>
But the number of stations on digital modes in other countries or lack
thereof has does not justify Morse code testing. I choose to operate
with digital modes because it is my interest. Yet, I have no interest in
forcing any one else to equip their stations with digital equipment.
Similarly, if one wishes to use Morse code, that is their choice. But
that by no means justifies that everyone else must be also tested in
order to use the amateur bands.
>>But the justification for testing is not based on usefulness or
>>even popularity, but on need.
>
>You can't separate these concepts that easily. Morse is useful,
>popular, and necessary to the well-being of the Amateur service.
>
I agree that Morse code is popular, but it is illogical to think that its
popularity justifies testing. I also disagree that Morse code is
necessary to the well-being of the amateur service. It is just another
mode of communications that amateurs use. If it is so popular, then
testing is not required because it will survive on its own merits. Yet,
I suspect that Long, like other pro-code testing advocates, know that if
government testing is abolished, Morse code's popularity will decrease
significantly, where the number of stations using it will be in the same
quantity as those stations on the bands that use double sideband,
transmitted carrier amplitude modulated radiotelephony.
>>In the context of advanced communciations modes, the use of Morse
>code is also optional, there is no discernable need for it.
>
>The fact that YOU can't discern the need doesn't validate this
>statement.
>
So far, Long and other pro-code testing advocates, have not presented any
evidence that would support continued Morse code testing. Therefore, not
only I, but a significant number of others share the same view - Morse
code testing is unnecessary because the original reason for Morse code
testing, that being to mitigate interference between amateur and
commercial stations, was obviated when the bands were divided upon and
allocated to the various services. All the other reasons postulated for
the continuance of Morse code testing do not stand up to scrutiny.
>73,
>Jack WB3U
Todd Little
In article <4p3h9o$a...@crash.microserve.net>
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> r...@urth.eng.sun.com (Rich McAllister) wrote:
> [...]
> You're proposing to eliminate the Morse requirement in order to
> buy the affections of unmotivated persons who will nevertheless
> have nothing more than a passing curiousity regarding our service.
>
> - BENEFIT DENIED -
You have absolutely *no* way of telling whether the people we
are turning off are motivated or not about anything other than
Morse code, although I suspect you believe your statement as
written. In effect, you've just labeled technician class licensees
as unmotivated with only a passing interest in our service. Fortunately
reality doesn't agree with your claim.
>>2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
>>license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening
>>to tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting
>>on the air, building things, or studying something really new.
>>We'd be better off if they spent that effort on something else.
> Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
> that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
> on the air. Not only have you failed to prove that time spent
> on its improvement is less valuable than the other pursuits,
> it's the only one that takes nothing away from air time.
>
> - BENEFIT DENIED -
Again, too bad reality doesn't agree with your view. I'd guess the vast
majority of amateurs these days don't spend their practice time
"on the air". It's far more convenient to use something like SuperMorse
or Morse Academy than trying to find a Morse practice session that
will yield the same benefit. And from what I hear on the air, we'd be
better off if people spent less time on the air and more time
studying or building. At least those activities have a chance of
helping one contribute to the state of the art instead of preserving
a quaint bit of radio history.
> Abolishing Morse will not abolish bigotry. Even reducing the
> service to a single, exam-free license class won't accomplish
> that.
>
> - BENEFIT DENIED -
Certainly won't "abolish bigotry" outside the amateur service.
But it would eliminate code knowledge and license class as
a discriminator. About the only easy bias left would be based
upon callsign age. Personally I believe Incentive Licensing
that got us into this mess has clearly demonstrated what folly
it is to have 6 classes of licenses.
I also *love* the strawman in there, "reducing" and "exam-free".
What a yuck! You and Vince should get together on the air on one
of K1MAN's frequencies.
> Sorry Rich, you haven't proven your case. Every "benefit"
> you've described above is either unsupported or the result of
> a conclusion that is logically flawed.
Ahh... but the whole question has been cleverly twisted around.
The govenment in our country must prove the benefit of *HAVING*
a law or regulation. You've nicely tried to twist that around into
something else. Like the IARU FASC committee is asking: "What
is the benefit to the amateur radio service of a Morse requirement?"
- REGULATION DENIED -
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Cecil A. Moore~
In article <4p3h9o$a...@crash.microserve.net>,
WB3U <ja...@pinetree.microserve.com> wrote:
>Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
>that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
>on the air.
Dang Jack, that means my phone operating skills haven't improved
a bit since I was 14 years old and on AM for the first time.
Shucks, I thought it was possible for me to improve with
experience but I was only deluding myself. :-(
Todd Little
In article <4p3h1t$a...@crash.microserve.net>
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>
>>>The burden of proof is not on those who wish to see the
>>>basic nature of Amateur Radio remain the same. Change brings
>>>risk, and risk must be justified through perceived benefits.
>>>If you can't do that, the change has no foreseeable merit.
>
>>The burden of proof, in any case, as it relates to testing
>>reqirements must be on those that claim the reuirement is
>>still relavent.
>
> Change can only be justified through a logical analysis of
> risk VS benefit. This is a valid concept and it is
> fundamental to determining the advisability of ANY decision.
If what you say is true (which is debatable), then the only
way to measure the benefit or risk of the change is to know
what benefit *having* the requirement provides. If the
requirement no longer provides a benefit, then there is
no basis for the requirement and no further risk versus
benefit analysis is needed.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Rich McAllister
In article <4p30ga$b...@anomaly.ideamation.com> kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Radio might have been the "high tech" of the 1950's, but today
>its an old, antiquated form of communication.
Ah, *that* explains why there was so little bidding at the
spectrum auctions, and why there haven't been any new
ventures trying to get spectrum allocations recently.
I wondered why that was.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Rich McAllister
In article <4p3h9o$a...@crash.microserve.net> ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) writes:
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>
>
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>
Ooh, capital letters! That settles it.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Jim Cummings
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>In article <4p26c2$d...@crc-news.doc.ca>, Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>And the internet beats them all, but there's more to amateur radio than just
>>>transmitting information.
>>
>> But I was not addressing other means of transmitting information outside
>> of the amateur service. If Craig wishes to debate the relative
>> effectiveness of amateur radio compared the internet, he is cordually
>> invited to do so.
>
>OK I'll start. The internet is faster and more reliable for transmitting
>data than any HF mode available. But who cares?
I certainly don't because I am not interested in the comparison between
the effectiveness of amateur radio and Internet. So I would ask Craig to
start another thread.
>Data transmission is
>not the sole objective of HF amateur operations.
>
I agree. There are many modes of communications used by amateurs. But
it is the pro-code testing advocates who claim that CW communications is
the most effective communications modes. That is no longer the case.
>>>> Unless Long is prepared to provide some evidence that the premise is
>>>> false, the conclusion still stands.
>>>>
>>>So any conclusion drawn from a premise is true unless the premise is
>>>proved false? Now THAT's what philosophers call 'begging the question'.
>>
>> No, that is not what I said. Since Long failed to present any evidence
>> that the premise was incorrect, the conclusion still stood. Craig is
>> heartily invited once more to debate the merits of either the premise or
>> the conclusion.
>
>Now thats what philosophers call 'saving face' while 'begging the question'.
>
.. and that's called sour grapes because Craig can counter my superior
debating points.
>>>The extensive use of CW on our HF bands makes Morse code skills relevant
>>>to competent HF operating.
>>>
>> No it is not because there is no regulatory requirement for the use of
>> Morse code in amateur radio.
>
>No, people do it for enjoyment and satisfaction. So what?
>
Exactly. However, it doesn't follow that Morse code testing for
everybody is justified based on the whims of a smaller group.
>> Like any other mode, being it SSB, SSTV,
>> FSTV, Baudot, Clover, satellite operations or whatever, the fact remains
>> that no amateur is forced to use it, it is selected by choice.
>
>All these modes can be used on VHF/UHF.
>
And MF/HF as well....
>> Moreover, Morse code's popularity does not justify for continued testing
>> prior to being authorized to operate on the amateur bands.
>
>It is only required for HF. Over 99.9% of the amateur frequency
>allocations are available to anyone without a CW test.
>
... and there is no justification for Morse code testing for the
remaining .1% of the amateur allocations.
>>>The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
>>>specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
>>
>> How so? Pavlov's dog was conditioned to drool upon a stimulus. Decoding
>> Morse code is nothing different, hear "didah", write the letter "A". It
>> matters little if the response to the stimulus is drooling or writing, it
>> is still a conditioned response.
>
>It is the nature of the response. Writing is a conscious process, drooling
>is not.
>
It matters little whether the process is conscious or not, it is still
conditioning. Hear the bell, drool. Hear the dits and dahs, write a
letter.
>>>> In contradiction to Long's opinion, the difference between a digital rig
>>>> and a CW is trivial.
>>>
>>>OK, but he was taking about systems not rigs.
>>>
>> I beg to differ, he was addressing digital rigs,
>
>What say Jack ? (It's probably better to ask him...)
>
>in response to my
>> original posting. In any case, if we wish to discuss digital systems,
>> there are many inexpensive means of using some of the modern encoding
>> schemes with some software, which can be FTPed, and a simple homebrew
>> modem. About 20 bucks will get one on Baudot and Amtor.
>
I addressed this in another posting to the newsgroup.
>Cost ain't the issue. It's simplicity of the communication system.
>A CW transmission system can be build using one active component.
>
I agree, cost is irrelevant to the issue of Morse code testing. Yet, it
is the pro-code testing who always use the costs factor to support Morse
code testing. Not only is costs not the issue, I have shown that that
costs for equipping a station with digital modes is also insignificant.
>> Popularity is not the issue. I was countering the cultural snobbery that
>> abounds in amateur radio of those who claim that in order to communicate
>> internationally, Morse code is a must because amateurs in many nations
>> are technologically backwards. As I indicated in an earlier posting,
>> this is balderdash.
>
>I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that the sound corresponding
>to the CW - -. -..- is understood by more HF amateurs than not.
>
Of course all HF amateurs know what those Morse code symbols mean because
most (some Japanese amateurs being the exception) have been tested for
Morse code, in accordance with the provisions of the ITU Radio
Regulations. The point is that there is no need for all amateurs who
wish to operate on the amateur bands below 30 MHz must know Morse code.
>> using Morse code, he should by all means learn it. But that does not
>> justify that everybody should learn it by government fiat.
>
>Not everyone has to learn it. It's only required for a tiny portion
>of spectrum where is is extensively used anyway.
>
If it is extensively used and valuable, then its continued use will be
based on its merits. But we all know that without the government
coertion, Morse code would be popular only with an even smaller minority
of amateurs.
>> .. and it is no longer needed on HF because there are many advanced
>> communciations modes also, such as pactor, Clover and automatical link
>> establishement.
>
>But there's more to amateur radio than data transmission.
>
I agree. But it is the pro-code testing advocates who believe that Morse
code is the be all and end all based on mythological overtones. We just
point out that the development of digital communications has overtaken
Morse code in effectiveness.
>> Therefore, in like manner as for VHF, all Morse code
>> testing should be abolished because there are much better modes to use to
>> establish communcations.
>
>How do you define better? These 'better' modes are even better on UHF!
>
With respect to the digital modes, they are more reliable, have faster
throughput and with the proliferation of multi-frequency BBSs using
Clover, pactor and amtor, messages can be passed automatically, without
having to wait for schedule nets. Not only that, modems have been
developed such that digital communcations can be undertaken when signals
are not discernable by the ear. No doubt Craig will not believe me
because it is often difficult to accept that beliefs based on previous
technologies, i.e. CW will get through will get through when all other
fails, is no longer true. I would suggest that he read Ford's review of
HAL's P38 board of Aug 95 QST, where he witnessed the decoding of Baudot
communications where there apparently was not a signal that could be
heard by ear.
>> Since Morse code is no longer a valid indicator of operator competence,
>
>CW is a valid indicator on HF.
>
No, that is nonsence. CW is a mode on HF, not an indicator, valid or
otherwise.
>> those who wish to study to become amateurs will no longer have to be
>> burdened with having to spend time on learning the Morse code.
>
>>That time
>> could be much more profitably spent investigating and learning more
>> relevant aspects of the the hobby.
>
>Like what?
The more recent developments in communications technologies like DSP, and
other digital topics; a more than nodding acquaintaince of satellites
(Did I mention that no-coded amateurs can use Morse code on satellites,
or EME communications, if they so wish? So much for the view that Morse
code can't be found in the bands above 30 MHz. This further weakens the
arguement that Morse code testing in vital.)
>
>> In addition, so long as amateurs are
>> required to learn Morse code, the public perception will continue that we
>> are not using our mandate to investingate the state of the art of radio
>> wisely.
>
>VHF and up is where the new frontiers are, both for AR and commercial
>services. Public already knows this.
>
In other words, there is no point in investigating better and more
effecient modes of communications on HF because we cannot do any better.
Thus we should concentrate our efforts only on the band above 30 MHz.
To say the least, an interesting notion, if not arrogant, particularly by
someone who has no experience in the new frontiers of HF communications.
In contradiction to Craig's assertion, the public, for the most part,
have no idea what is or is not in the forefront in technology and on what
bands. Furthermore, there are many of my fellow amateurs who are
ignorant of these developments also!
>> Instead, we will be viewed as preservationists of arcane
>> communications modes. As a result, it will be more difficult to defend
>> our allocations because the will be percieved as being the preserve of
>> outdated technologies.
>
>This can be countered by highlighting our VHF/UHF voice/data/satellite networks.
>HF frequencies are NOT under threat... guess which ones are!
>
I agree, the pressure is on the bands above 30 MHz, but this is a
strawman. The pressure on our bands above 30 MHz will continue
regardless of the retention of Morse code testing for those bands below
30 MHz.
>How will amateur radio benefit by removing the CW test?
>
See my last posting. It is the same answer to the same question that has
been rephrased.
>> 73 and live better digitally
>> Jim, VE3XJ
>>
>Better for whom?
>
For me. For Craig, if he so wishes, as well as anyone else.
>Joe VO1NA
Todd Little
In article <1996Jun5.101722@deneb>
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
> In article <4p26c2$d...@crc-news.doc.ca>, Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
> It is only required for HF. Over 99.9% of the amateur frequency
> allocations are available to anyone without a CW test.
Right, and air travel is only one form of transportation. Next time
you travel to Europe, try walking or any of the other 95% of the
travel modes. This 99.9% nonsense is a hoot. If HF frequencies
are interchangable with SHF frequencies, then why have a Morse
requirement for them and not 3 cm?
>>>The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
>>>specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
>>
>> How so? Pavlov's dog was conditioned to drool upon a stimulus. Decoding
>> Morse code is nothing different, hear "didah", write the letter "A". It
>> matters little if the response to the stimulus is drooling or writing, it
>> is still a conditioned response.
>
> It is the nature of the response. Writing is a conscious process, drooling
> is not.
OK, how about copying on a mill. Given what animal trainers are
able to get primates and other animals to do, training one to
copy Morse code on a mill is certainly conceivable. So did these
animals just become conscious beings?
> in response to my
>> original posting. In any case, if we wish to discuss digital systems,
>> there are many inexpensive means of using some of the modern encoding
>> schemes with some software, which can be FTPed, and a simple homebrew
>> modem. About 20 bucks will get one on Baudot and Amtor.
>
> Cost ain't the issue. It's simplicity of the communication system.
> A CW transmission system can be build using one active component.
Where anywhere does it say "simplicity" is the issue??? I don't
find it in the ITU regulations or the FCC regulations. At least in
the FCC regulations, there are terms like "state of the art", not
"strive for minimalism". It also doesn't agree with reality. Find a
country where one active component CW transmission systems
are a measurable portion of the amateur communication systems
in that country. One active component transmitters rank right up
there with Morse code, i.e., a stylistic bit of communications history.
>> using Morse code, he should by all means learn it. But that does not
>> justify that everybody should learn it by government fiat.
>
> Not everyone has to learn it. It's only required for a tiny portion
> of spectrum where is is extensively used anyway.
Its used exclusively on 144.000 to 144.050 (EME sub-band) and not
required. So use in a set of frequencies isn't a determining factor.
The tiny portion also ignores the rather fundamental difference between
that tiny portion and the rest of the allocations.
>> Since Morse code is no longer a valid indicator of operator competence,
> CW is a valid indicator on HF.
A valid indicator of what? Your interest in history? Please don't
try and suggest that a once in a lifetime demonstration of copying
Morse code is any indicator of anything, least of all operator
competence. It's no more an indicator of operator competence than
speaking or writing are.
>> those who wish to study to become amateurs will no longer have to be
>> burdened with having to spend time on learning the Morse code.
>
>>That time
>> could be much more profitably spent investigating and learning more
>> relevant aspects of the the hobby.
>
> Like what?
Like what's happened in the state of the art in radio communications
over the last 30-40 years.
>> In addition, so long as amateurs are
>> required to learn Morse code, the public perception will continue that we
>> are not using our mandate to investingate the state of the art of radio
>> wisely.
>
> VHF and up is where the new frontiers are, both for AR and commercial
> services. Public already knows this.
Most people couldn't tell up from down with respect to frequency.
For a simple test, ask 10 people at random on the street what
720 on their AM dial means. Then ask them if 95.5 FM is above or
below 720.
They *do* associate Morse code with amateur radio and I *doubt*
they consider it very high tech when compared to the world around
them.
>> Instead, we will be viewed as preservationists of arcane
>> communications modes. As a result, it will be more difficult to defend
>> our allocations because the will be percieved as being the preserve of
>> outdated technologies.
>
> This can be countered by highlighting our VHF/UHF voice/data/satellite networks.
> HF frequencies are NOT under threat... guess which ones are!
The public doesn't know this from Adam. Their perception of our
service isn't based upon anything technical, and certainly nothing
about what frequencies are under threat.
> How will amateur radio benefit by removing the CW test?
No, how does the Morse examination *benefit* the amateur radio
service? This is the logical question the IARU FASC committee is
asking and I'd love to hear an answer.
73,
Todd
N9MWB
Jerry B. Altzman
>>2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
>>license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening
>>to tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting
>>on the air, building things, or studying something really new.
>>We'd be better off if they spent that effort on something else.
>Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
>that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
>on the air. Not only have you failed to prove that time spent
I suppose traffic nets don't count, huh?
>Jack WB3U
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@cs.columbia.edu jba...@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML
WB3U
cmo...@vegas.ch.intel.com (Cecil A. Moore~) wrote:
>WB3U <ja...@pinetree.microserve.com> wrote:
>>Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
>>that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
>>on the air.
>Dang Jack, that means my phone operating skills haven't improved
>a bit since I was 14 years old and on AM for the first time.
>Shucks, I thought it was possible for me to improve with
>experience but I was only deluding myself. :-(
I think you can breathe easy Cecil. I'm sure your 'phone skills
are just fine and much improved from when you were 14 years old.
After all, that isn't one of the skills claimed by Rich to be
stunted by Morse. ;)
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> writes:
>Since Long failed to present any evidence that the premise was
>incorrect, the conclusion still stood.
That's actually pretty funny. Like I said, the premise was
incorrect because it was incomplete.
73,
Jack WB3U
Rich McAllister
>>I don't remember seeing this. Answers seem pretty darn obvious
>>to me. Free training
>
>Companies do that all the time. In fact, they pay employees while
>they're trained.
But they don't give training to anybody interested.
>
>>and experimentation (n.b. experiments are not necessarily *novel*)
>>seem to me to be pretty hard to do in a commercial setting.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "n.b.",
In your twenty eight year search for the truth have you ever
run across that marvelous invention called a dictionary?
>> but experiments and RF
>research are performed constantly by industry. In fact,
>industry is considerably better equipped to provide legitimately
>meaningful results and test data than most Amateurs.
Yes, but if I want to see if my new preamp helps, will they
open their labs to me?
>How many
>new patents have been awarded to Amateurs working out of their
>garages in the last twenty years?
N.b. experiments are not necessarily *novel*. (Is there an echo in here?)
>
>>And, while I could imagine a commercial enterprise *promising*
>>to provide emergency communications in exchange for the
>>frequencies, I'd be highly skeptical that they would deliver.
>
>A similar situation already exists on ITFS channels and it's
>worked admirably. [...]
>The operators have
>no intention of risking their frequencies for a mere $250,000
>worth of equipment dedicated to the educators.
$250,000? That would pay for, what, a thousand HTs?
>
>>Why have parks when commercial enterprises would be willing to
>>do "better" (better access, nicer facilities, creative
>>advertisements to enhance the outdoor experience) with the
>>same land?
>
>Given the scenario you've described, why indeed?
Uh, because "access", "facilities" and "advertisements" aren't the
only point of parks.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Michael P. Deignan
In article <RFM.96Ju...@urth.eng.sun.com>,
Rich McAllister <r...@urth.eng.sun.com> wrote:
> When I explain
> the situation, they lose interest since it's clear to them that hams
> are still using Morse as an artificial barrier to keep people like
> them out.
Since the codeless Tech license gives access to 99% of all amateur
frequencies, and the frequencies where "technical innovation" would
be occuring anyway, anyone who stays out of the amateur radio service
for this reason probably doesn't want to be a ham anyway. (By this
I mean even if they did get their ticket, they would probably not use
it anyway.)
> But it's very important that people like this -- who
> tend to be articulate and often politically involved -- have a good
> opinion of amateur radio.
I daresay more people have the opinion that "hams cause interference
on my TV set" and "hams always want to put up those ugly towers that
lower my property value" than "hams are a bunch of old people who like
morse code".
>2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
> license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening to
> tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting on the
> air, building things, or studying something really new.
After passing that measly 5 WPM code test they >CAN< get on the air
and hone their operating skills.
>3. There are currently a lot of hams that look down on no-code
> Techs as some kind of lower order of being; along with this comes
> the general assumption that anybody with a recent call is a
> clueless nocoded. We can't afford this kind of factionalism.
Get used to it. Its happened with every major change to the amateur
licensing structure. In time it will go away.
>4. The existence of the code requirement inhibits any radical
> simplification of the license structure, which I think we need.
Not really, I think its quite easy to restructure the licensing
system and maintain a code requirement.
> Five classes and a jumble of privileges is just too complicated.
> I think we ought to have a two level license structure, entry
> and general; having the HF code requirement means that we have
> to have at least 4 license classes in any sane system.
Only if you segregate morse as a separate element.
Try this:
Class A: Class B w/ 15 WPM code examination
Class B: 85% on 100-question multiple-choice examination. Combination
of all 5 existing theory elements.
Class A gets all HF, Class B gets all VHF+. Simple.
Michael P. Deignan
In article <4p2qih$h...@jupiter.planet.net>,
Bill Sohl <bill...@planet.net> wrote:
>>The point you overlook is there are very few hand cranked and manual
>>transmission automobiles on the road today.
>
>Not true as to manual gearboxes. Sales of cars with manual
>gearboxes are still a significant percent of total sales.
Do you have a percentage? Define "significant". Other than speciality
and sports cars, it doesn't appear that dealers stock manual transmission
cars. The last four times I went vehicle shopping almost every dealer I
went to either had one or zero manual transmission vehicles (I only buy
vehicles w/ sticks) on their lots.
>>There are still a significant
>>number of CW operators, especially from other countries.
>
>Your point is?
Gee, there is supposed to be this stated goal of amateur radio that we
enhance international goodwill. If you can't communicate with people
internationally, you can't enhance goodwill, can you?
>>Oh, and not all states have done away with a manual transmission test
>>if you want to drive a stick....
>
>Please identify any state which makes that distinction.
Many years ago, Ohio used to. Don't know if they still do or not, I've
been back in New England the past 11 years.
>Additionally, even if there is a state or two that makes such a
>distinction, it ONLY impacts their own licensed drivers.
>My NJ license is good in every state of the union to drive a stick
>or automatic.
Perhaps, but chances are you're not going to drive a stick unless you
know how to.
Dana Myers
In article <4p30id$4...@crash.microserve.net>,
>>of CW requirements will open up amateur radio to the entire
>>cadre of CBers is bull. No one is suggesting elimination of
>>theory tests and many (including myself) have suggested
>>ways to strengthen the test procedure to help eliminate
>>memorization for those questions that shouldn't relie on
>>memorizing answers, but rather on understanding concepts
>>(eg. the formula/equation type questions).
>
>The usefulness of tougher theory exams to eliminate CB'ers
>and similar types requires that you first believe in the
>"filter" effect of entrance requirements. I thought this
>effect was deemed non-existent by most no-code HF proponents?
Well, I can certainly say that my suggestion of offering a
written exam as a replacement for/alternative to the code
exams is not founded, in any way, on the notion a filter against
"CBers" is necessary.
My suggestion is founded in the recognition of the value of the
goals and purpose of the US amateur radio service, as spelled out
in Part 97.1. I've suggested a written exam be offered which is
consistent with 97.1, and I've suggested that the code exams
are decreasingly consistent with 97.1, perhaps to the point of
inconsistency.
Rich McAllister
>>1. Despite the vast improvement of the no-code Tech, I still
>>find when talking to people that I think would be good prospects
>>for ham radio that they ask "is Morse Code still required?"
>>When I explain the situation, they lose interest ...
>
>>I think it's true that somebody who stays out of ham radio
>>because of this perception has a low enough level of motivation
>>that they might not become hams anyway. But it's very important
>>that people like this -- who tend to be articulate and often
>>politically involved -- have a good opinion of amateur radio.
>
>You're proposing to eliminate the Morse requirement in order to
>buy the affections of unmotivated persons who will nevertheless
>have nothing more than a passing curiousity regarding our service.
>
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
But it's very important
that people like this -- who tend to be articulate and often
politically involved -- have a good opinion of amateur radio.
Why? Because we may need their political support sometime.
>
>>2. Because of the heavy emphasis on Morse testing in the incentive
>>license structure, we have many amateurs spending time listening
>>to tapes and computer Morse training programs instead of getting
>>on the air, building things, or studying something really new.
>>We'd be better off if they spent that effort on something else.
>
>Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
>that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
>on the air.
False; I hear people improving their building skills by getting advice over
the air all the time. Further, it *isn't* practiced on the air much
anymore. People *are* using computers and tapes instead. Let's try to stick
with the world as it actually is instead of the world that would be more
convenient for your arguments, please.
>Not only have you failed to prove that time spent
>on its improvement is less valuable than the other pursuits,
To claim otherwise would be to make the extraordinary claim that
no amateur radio activity is more important than Morse.
>
>>3. There are currently a lot of hams that look down on no-code
>> Techs as some kind of lower order of being;
>
>Abolishing Morse will not abolish bigotry.
But even reducing bigotry is a worthwhile goal.
>
>>4. The existence of the code requirement inhibits any radical
>> simplification of the license structure, which I think we need.
>
>The retention of a Morse requirement would not, in itself,
>prevent reducing the structure to a single class of license.
Only if we eliminate all no-code licenses. Duh.
>
>- BENEFIT DENIED -
>
>>5. Finally, I believe that the Morse requirement may actually
>>be resulting in fewer people learning Morse than otherwise; once
>>the people I refer to in point 1 get into the hobby, they have a
>>chance to see how useful Morse can still be for many of the things
>>hams do; once people see that it *is* useful, they're likely to
>>learn it. Requiring it simply keeps them out of the hobby
>>altogether, and they'll never learn Morse.
>
>Morse is NOT required in order to become a ham. What you've
>stated above is my primary reason for not objecting to the
>present no-code license. This has nothing to do with
>elimination of the Morse requirement for all HF privelages.
You're arguing point 1 again, this is point 5. Again, there
*are* people who have the views I described in point 1. Indeed,
my evidence is only ancedotal; you could claim there
are few enough of them that it makes no difference, but you'd
have no more support than I do for the counterclaim.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
> >ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> >>Jim Cummings <jcum...@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>And as radio continues to mature, the usefulness of CW is now
>>on the outgoing tide.
>Amateur Radio itself is on the outgoing tide. That's no
>reason to destroy it prematurely.
>>Yet there have been NO emergencies in several years
>>that have been forced to rely on Morce to "get through".
>>That is why the Coast Guard does not invest in training
>>for CW any more.
>Coast Guard modes of operation are irrelevant to our service.
>Of course, if you can convince the government to give each
>of us a redundant, multi-hundred thousand dollar digital
>transmit/receive site, I might reconsider.
Why would you need such exotic capability? You've
just rendered ham radio as a ham only interest arena.
If you exclude non-ham cases, the last time anyone
had to rely on CW in an emergency is even more remote.
>>To suggest that being able to send or receive morse is
>>any way an actual operational test is bull.
>Not only is it an operational test, it's the only one we
>will ever have that measures operator skill, preparedness,
>motivation, and the ability to fulfill the goals of the
>service under a variety of conditions.
That is an opinion without any substantiation. How it
can be viewed as an operational test is ridiculous
since it is copy only and answer some wuestions. The
fact that many of the tests are a simulated one side of a QSO
is not required by any FCC rule. I passed my novice years
ago when the person just sent me 5 minutes of text
from a QST article.
As to motivation, preparedness and the ability to
fulfill goals...those are NOT FCC requirements. They are
qualities which, while laudable, are not the reason for
tests. I was always an A student in math, yet my motivation and
interest in math was minimal. Did I not deserve to pass the course?
There are certainly unmotivated people out there that
have attained 20 wpm morse ability too with ease, yet their
lack of motivation is undetectable.
>>If construction is your hallmark of all amateurs, the testing
>>for CW has nothing to do with it.
>The topic wasn't construction, it was simplicity.
>>Nothing in the FCC rules or regs mandates that every ham
>>must be able to converse with every other possible ham
>>they might encounter.
>The rules also don't require that every ham learn CW.
Every ham that wants to get on HF must.
>>You keep touting the usefulness of CW, yet you refuse
>>to see that other modes are as useful or more so than CW.
>No, you're just missing the big picture. That's why your
>position relies on so many misconceptions for support.
Again, you avoid answering the comment. The ONLY
purpose for testing is to determine the abilities and
knowledge that the FCC requires. None of your
subjective quality desires are substantiatable by CW testing.
Bill Sohl K2UNK
ARRL Local Gov't Liaison, Mt. Olive Township, NJ
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>Why, because the constant phony threat that the elimination
>>of CW requirements will open up amateur radio to the entire
>>cadre of CBers is bull. No one is suggesting elimination of
>>theory tests and many (including myself) have suggested
>>ways to strengthen the test procedure to help eliminate
>>memorization for those questions that shouldn't relie on
>>memorizing answers, but rather on understanding concepts
>>(eg. the formula/equation type questions).
>The usefulness of tougher theory exams to eliminate CB'ers
>and similar types requires that you first believe in the
>"filter" effect of entrance requirements. I thought this
>effect was deemed non-existent by most no-code HF proponents?
I have no desire to eliminate anyone's access to HF ham radio.
I don't want arbitrary FILTERS. If there are CBers out there that
want to become HF hams, then let them pass the appropriate
test requirements.
All I ask is that whatever test requirements are in
place as license requirements are completely relavent to
the license desired. I take the same attitude towards driver's
license requirements. There's no need to force everyone
to learn to drive a stick shift just to keep the number of
cars on the road down. Testing MUST be relavent to the
minimum safety and service criteria needed AND THAT
IS ALL.
>At any rate, considering that every CB'er I ever met absolutely
>detested Morse, I'm not convinced that tougher theory provides
>the same deterrent. Nothing makes me happier than to hear a
>trash-mouthed CB'er say "If it wasn't for that dang code ..."
Thank you Jack, your bias, if it wasn't perfectly clear before,
certainly is now. You don't really desire to retain code because
it can be justified rationally, rather the statement above points
out that your PRIMARY support of code is to keep others
from becoming hams. And, it certainly appears that anyone that
is or was a CBer is most unwelcome in your mind.
>>If there is a finite maximum number of amateurs that should be
>>licensed, then please state that as your opinion,
>No, I'm fine with the idea that anyone who can qualify should
>receive the privelages.
Sure, even when one of the qualifications has less and less relavence
as time goes on. Add again my comments above.
>>If you want a roadblock to keep others out, then make the
>>roadblock related to contemporary communications, not a mode
>>which sees less usage as time goes on.
>Use of Morse on the Amateur bands is not waning.
First, that is not a statement supported by any
scientific data. Counting QSOs is not enough.
There can be hundreds of packet QSOs in the
space of only a few minutes that never get counted
too. Additionally, even if morse is used by 50% of
all ams, it doesn't justify that all hams must posses the skill.
There are other modes that are used, but not one single mode
other than morse is stuffed down the throats of all
those that might want to get on HF. The justification that
it is still used by a good percentage of hams should only support
it being tested as a part of the total test process, not
as the exclusive pass/fail entry requirement that it is
today. I have proposed keeping morse testing and merging
it into the overall test structure (see below). Do you oppose
that idea too?.
> Our needs,
>and therefore the actual usefulness of Morse, cannot be
>evaluated on the basis of other services.
Thank you, now please don't ever bring up the need that
hams must be ready to assist via morse for some
unlikely event or emergency on a non-ham service (eg. a morse
SOS from a maritime vessel).
>Also, considering
>that theory exams alone may not be sufficient to maintain the
>quality of the service, there is no "modern" substitute for
>the skill required to be demonstrated by a Morse exam. A
>typing test won't do.
If the theory isn't good enough to test for the minimum ENTRY
REQUIREMENTS then the service isn't sufficiently
defined or the theory testing needs improvement (or both).
The statement above again indicates that you see morse skill
somehow related to being a good ham yet there are
countless Extra bozos out there that service as evidence
to the contrary.
-------begin test merging proposal--------
Current test requirements for General and Extra require the passage of
a CW test at 13 wpm and 20 wpm respectfully along with a separate
theory test. In both cases the CW test is a stand alone, pass (70%
correct) fail requirement. But what if we offered test takers the
opportunity to take the test elements as they do today OR, as an
option, we let them take the 13 wpm or 20 wpm CW test as an integral
part of the respective General or Extra theory (i.e. written) test?
How would that be accomplished?
During any VE session, if a test taker completed the CW test with a
passing score of 70%, they would be granted an CSCE and then take the
theory test as before. However, if they failed the CW test, they
would be permitted to merge the CW test results from that day’s test
with their theory results also taken on that day only. If they still
failed to pass the theory test using a merged score, no CSCE would be
issued for either part of the testing.
The actual scoring would be done as follows:
The General theory test is 25 questions and one must answer 19
questions correctly to pass. The 13 wpm CW test is 10 questions and
one must get 7 answers correct to pass that test element. If we
combine the two tests (for a total of 35 questions) and if the test
taker scores a total of 26 answers correctly, then he or she passes,
regardless of the individual number of incorrect answers on the CW
test.
While I haven’t shown the numbers, the same scoring process could be
applied to the 40 question Extra class test.
Doing this would retain the same overall test methods (only the
scoring process would change), no additional record keeping should be
required nor would any CSCE be issued for anything that isn’t issued
today. More importantly, an immediate benefit of this approach is
that if someone chooses to not pursue the 13 or 20 wpm level of CW,
they MUST get a greater percentage of the Theory element correct in
order to obtain an overall passing score. That automatically raises
the difficulty level of the theory test for those people that might
wish to ignore learning CW at those speeds, which is something many
have desired to see happen if any change is made regarding a lowering
or elimination of CW requirements.
Worst case scenario for someone taking the General test who didn’t
attempt to learn any CW beyond 5 WPM: Even if they just filled in
answer B for all 10 CW questions, they might luck out and get 3 of the
CW questions correct anyway. That being the case, they'd then need to
correctly answer 23 of 25 theory questions (92%) to have a total of 26
correct answers to pass the test on a combined score basis.
In summary, I think this suggestion meets the concerns of many hams
because:
1. It retains all existing levels of CW testing,
2. It maintains full compliance with International treaties,
3. It makes no changes to the test elements themselves,
4. It improves the theory difficulty for people that ignored CW,
5. It would be an easy to implement process if approved by the FCC and
6. It provides a middle ground solution for an ever increasing area of
internal debate among hams.
Note, I have not suggested merging the 5 wpm test at this time because
that minimal level of CW testing must be retained for compliance with
international treaty. If, in the future, the international
requirement goes away, then merging the 5 wpm testing might also be
considered.
Bill Sohl
29 Netcong Road
Budd Lake, NJ 07828
Telephone - Days 908-957-6679 Evenings 201-691-8116
Bill Sohl
ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
> bill...@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote:
>>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>>>The burden of proof is not on those who wish to see the
>>>basic nature of Amateur Radio remain the same. Change brings
>>>risk, and risk must be justified through perceived benefits.
>>>If you can't do that, the change has no foreseeable merit.
>>The burden of proof, in any case, as it relates to testing
>>reqirements must be on those that claim the reuirement is
>>still relavent.
>Change can only be justified through a logical analysis of
>risk VS benefit. This is a valid concept and it is
>fundamental to determining the advisability of ANY decision.
Risk of keeping CW as a mandatory test element for HF access.
Ham radio is viewed by others as just a historical anomaly
and losses more and more credibility with the general public
over time.
Benefit of dropping CW testing: Ham radio is perceived as a
viable contemprary radio service whose requirements bear direct
relavence to what is actually needed to be a ham.
>It's entirely accurate to say that someone who can describe no
>foreseeable benefits has no logical basis for proposing change.
You can say it, but that's your opinion. It's entirely accurate to
also say that someone who can describe no valid benefits to not
making a change has no logical basis for opposing the change.
>>It is simply no longer used in the commercial and military
>>areas. Please tell us where it is used in other than
>>amateur bands.
>Its use by the Amateur service is all I'm concerned with.
But it is not exclusively used by all hams and, therefore,
it should not be an exclusive pass/fail test element.
>>As to costs, as another pointed out, to suggest that all
>>hams must conform to a least common denominator mode
>>because other nations aren't as economically well off is
>>arrogance of the ugly American variety.
>I didn't say that, but I still don't agree with your
>conclusion. It's not arrogance to want to insure that all
>people, regardless of their financial status, can communicate
>through Amateur Radio. That applies to Americans as well,
>and there's nothing ugly about it. Perhaps real arrogance
>would be evidenced by someone who operates digital modes with
>no concern for the exclusion it creates among Amateurs of
>lesser means?
Right, we all should have a welfare mentality and be obligated
to accomodate the contact mode preferences of every
other ham out there. That is not now nor has it ever been
any aspect of amateur service. Additionally, it is arrogant to
assume that non-US hams are economically poorer and that
any ham, US or otherwise must be capable of holding QSOs
with all other hams. If that were truly the case, then why not
mandate learning Spanish which is a predominate language in
many other parts of the globe.
Regardless, the connection between CW knwledge and worldwide
communication capability is not justified unless you can say that
without CW knwledge hams would hams would no longer have that
capability...clearly that wouldn't and isn't the case as many current
HF hams couldn't hold a CW QSO if they had to yet they have
excellent worldwide capable stations.
>>Nothing at all in FCC or international treaty requires any ham
>>to own or build worldwide capable equipment.
>The need for such a requirement is preempted by the fact that
>lower license classes with poorer CW skills have traditionally
>been restricted to VHF and above. Amateurs who progress beyond
>that are granted HF privelages, use of which by qualified
>operators is assumed to provide international communications.
Nothing in what you've said here answers my comment that nothing
mandates any ham to own or build worldwide capable equipment.
>>Th prospect that one ham out of 500,000 or more might have
>>an emergence QSO via CW is not a valid reason to mandate that
>>every new ham learn CW.
>Bill, if that ham's effort was needed to save a life, I don't
>care how many hours new hams have to spend learning code in
>order to be able to communicate with him. I also don't care
>if they go their whole lives without ever using Morse for that
>purpose. In fact, that's what I hope for.
You probably endorse 55 speed limits too with that mind set.
Safety and protection of and saving of life is subject to risk
and cost analysis (costs include individual time) all the time.
Life has its risks. We all make risk decisions every day. On your
basis we'd be better off to require all hams to know CPR today.
Odds are that there would be more lives saved because HF hams
knew CPR than having all HF licensed hams know CW. Frankly, CPR
could be better justified as a requirement for all hams because of the
ham's greater probability of encountering electrical shock situations
than the average individual.
Lastly, the probability of an emergency requiring amateur intervention
is tday, far less likly on HF, where CW knowledge is required;
then on VHF where CW knowledge isn't requried.
jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca
In article <4p4aek$3...@usenet.pa.dec.com>, lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) writes:
> In article <1996Jun5.101722@deneb>
> jcr...@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>
>> It is only required for HF. Over 99.9% of the amateur frequency
>> allocations are available to anyone without a CW test.
>
> Right, and air travel is only one form of transportation. Next time
> you travel to Europe, try walking or any of the other 95% of the
> travel modes. This 99.9% nonsense is a hoot. If HF frequencies
> are interchangable with SHF frequencies, then why have a Morse
> requirement for them and not 3 cm?
>
Hmmm another one of these analogies that doesn't quite fit.
My point was that CW testing is NOT required for access to the amateur
frequencies. CW is required for a SMALL portion of these allocations,
right? What does this have to do with Europe and walking?
>>>>The analogy is weak. Writing is hardly an involuntary respose to a
>>>>specific stimulus as was drooling for Pavlov's dog.
>>>
>>> How so? Pavlov's dog was conditioned to drool upon a stimulus. Decoding
>>> Morse code is nothing different, hear "didah", write the letter "A". It
>>> matters little if the response to the stimulus is drooling or writing, it
>>> is still a conditioned response.
>>
>> It is the nature of the response. Writing is a conscious process, drooling
>> is not.
>
> OK, how about copying on a mill. Given what animal trainers are
> able to get primates and other animals to do, training one to
> copy Morse code on a mill is certainly conceivable. So did these
> animals just become conscious beings?
No, but they sure as hell didn't undergo Pavlovian conditioning. You
have a psych text handy? Look it up! The analogy fails on that point.
Learning CW ain't pavlovian conditioning.
>
> Where anywhere does it say "simplicity" is the issue??? I don't
> find it in the ITU regulations or the FCC regulations. At least in
> the FCC regulations, there are terms like "state of the art", not
> "strive for minimalism". It also doesn't agree with reality. Find a
> country where one active component CW transmission systems
> are a measurable portion of the amateur communication systems
> in that country. One active component transmitters rank right up
> there with Morse code, i.e., a stylistic bit of communications history.
Point was CW systems are simpler than digital ones. Aren't they?
>> Not everyone has to learn it. It's only required for a tiny portion
>> of spectrum where is is extensively used anyway.
>
> Its used exclusively on 144.000 to 144.050 (EME sub-band) and not
> required.
It's not up here. We can go on 144.010 and rag-chew on packet, right Jim?
>
>>> Since Morse code is no longer a valid indicator of operator competence,
>
>> CW is a valid indicator on HF.
>
> A valid indicator of what? Your interest in history? Please don't
> try and suggest that a once in a lifetime demonstration of copying
> Morse code is any indicator of anything, least of all operator
> competence. It's no more an indicator of operator competence than
> speaking or writing are.
>
Proficiency in CW is an indication of competence in communicating with a
major portion of HF users.
>> Like what?
>
> Like what's happened in the state of the art in radio communications
> over the last 30-40 years.
>
Yep. New modes, error free protocols, computers and TNC's doing all the
dirty work and amateurs getting plain bored with it all and going back to CW.
>>> In addition, so long as amateurs are
>>> required to learn Morse code, the public perception will continue that we
>>> are not using our mandate to investingate the state of the art of radio
>>> wisely.
>>
>> VHF and up is where the new frontiers are, both for AR and commercial
>> services. Public already knows this.
>
> Most people couldn't tell up from down with respect to frequency.
> For a simple test, ask 10 people at random on the street what
> 720 on their AM dial means. Then ask them if 95.5 FM is above or
> below 720.
>
> They *do* associate Morse code with amateur radio and I *doubt*
> they consider it very high tech when compared to the world around
> them.
In that case it would be better launch a public campaign and tell the
public about all the high tech stuff going on. This would accomplish more
than simply deleting CW tests.
> The public doesn't know this from Adam. Their perception of our
> service isn't based upon anything technical, and certainly nothing
> about what frequencies are under threat.
>
So petition the ARRL to better educate the public. It's part of their
mandate.
>> How will amateur radio benefit by removing the CW test?
>
> No, how does the Morse examination *benefit* the amateur radio
> service? This is the logical question the IARU FASC committee is
> asking and I'd love to hear an answer.
If you hear an answer to my question, post it immediately. Chances are
it'll be good for a chuckle!
> 73,
> Todd
> N9MWB
73 Joe VO1NA
WB3U
r...@urth.eng.sun.com (Rich McAllister) wrote:
kd...@anomaly.ideamation.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>>Radio might have been the "high tech" of the 1950's, but today
>>its an old, antiquated form of communication.
>Ah, *that* explains why there was so little bidding at the
>spectrum auctions, and why there haven't been any new
>ventures trying to get spectrum allocations recently.
>I wondered why that was.
You should remember this example the next time you apply
those same labels to Morse. ;)
73,
Jack WB3U
WB3U
lit...@pecan.enet.dec.com (Todd Little) wrote:
>ja...@pinetree.microserve.com (WB3U) wrote:
>> You're proposing to eliminate the Morse requirement in order to
>> buy the affections of unmotivated persons who will nevertheless
>> have nothing more than a passing curiousity regarding our service.
>You have absolutely *no* way of telling whether the people we
>are turning off are motivated or not about anything other than
>Morse code,
You need to read the original post again. My statement was a
summary of Rich's topic #1. If you disagree with the concepts he
presented, please don't complain to me about it.
>> Of all the things you've mentioned, Morse is the only activity
>> that can be practiced and improved at the same time the ham is
>> on the air. Not only have you failed to prove that time spent
>> on its improvement is less valuable than the other pursuits,
>> it's the only one that takes nothing away from air time.
>I'd guess the vast majority of amateurs these days don't spend
>their practice time "on the air".
Maybe that's why so many of them are here on the 'Net,
complaining about code.
>It's far more convenient to use something like SuperMorse or
>Morse Academy than trying to find a Morse practice session that
>will yield the same benefit.
This must be another guess. What do you think hams did before
computers? I'll give you a clue - most did NOT sit on their
rear ends waiting for W1AW to broadcast a session.
>And from what I hear on the air, we'd be better off if people
>spent less time on the air and more time studying or building.
Sounds like you think the entire service should be abolished,
not just Morse.
>> Abolishing Morse will not abolish bigotry. Even reducing the
>> service to a single, exam-free license class won't accomplish
>> that.
>Certainly won't "abolish bigotry" outside the amateur service.
>But it would eliminate code knowledge and license class as
>a discriminator.
So what's your point, and what does it have to do with the fact
that Rich's claim wasn't true?
>I also *love* the strawman in there, "reducing" and "exam-free".
>What a yuck! You and Vince should get together on the air on one
>of K1MAN's frequencies.
I don't konw what you're taking about, but your inability to
remain objective seems symptomatic of those who take your
position.
>The govenment in our country must prove the benefit of *HAVING*
>a law or regulation.
It already did that. Because you now wish the law repealed,
and because not everyone agrees with you, it's your turn.
73,
Jack WB3U