U.S. Morse Code Solution-Maybe?
Dr. Daffodil Swain
access to the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter old novice sub-bands. This would
allow aspiring upgraders a place to hone their skills without having to
just listen to recordings. Also, the sending skills can be developed as
well. A side benefit would be hearing the sound of CW again ( even if it's
bad) in these largly unused segments. Just a thought.
WA2SI
Sounds reasonable. Heck, eventually the FCC will acquiesce to those who
feel amateur radio privileges are rights rather than privileges. I
personally believe the FCC is going to retain Element 1 solely for the
Extra class license. This would actually be a more balanced
alternative, IMHO.
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782
K4YZ
We've long since left the American core value of "priviledge is
earned", Bert. It started with Johnson's "Great Society". The "Great
Entitlement Giveaway" has been gaining momentum since. It's now
self-perpetuating. You have a pulse? You're entitled to what ever you
want regardless of whether you earned it or not.
In any case, I tend to agree with you on the Code issue. I'd go a
bit further and grandfather all the Advanced guys into Extra if for no
other reason than eliminating some administrative headache. Readjust
some of the sub bands a bit, then have it down to truly three classes
of license...Not three active and then several other "if you were
licensed on this date, "this", if you are one legged and whistle while
roller skating, "that" class, etc etc etc...
EXTRA: Remain as is. Full privileges and 5 WPM test.
ADVANCED: Grandfathered to Extra. Class eliminated from
database.
GENERAL. Becomes No Code. Present Generals remain. Sub bands
adjusted with Advanced "upgrade".
TECH PLUS: Must take written for upgrade to General with HF
theory/practice/safety questions. "Novice" HF privileges revoked, but
CSCE for 5WPM remains valid for future Extra upgrade.
NC TECH: No Change.
NOVICES: No more renewals. Put on notice that if they don't
upgrade by next renewal date, the license is eliminated. Possible
alternative, grandfather to NCT?
73
Steve, K4YZ
Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Why not eliminate all testing? That's the ARRL plan.
Ten-Four Good-Buddy?
KB7ADL
Alun L. Palmer
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
There are too many proposals already, that's why the FCC is taking so long,
in all probability. FWIW, here's mine:-
1) Drop Element 1;
2) Upgrade Novices and No-code Techs to Tech Plus privileges, but just call
it Technician;
3) Upgrade Advanced to Extra
4) 'Re-farm' the Novice subbands as already agreed by the FCC;
5) As (4) above also affects (2), some further adjustments would have to be
made to Tech privileges, so I suggest giving them General CW/Data on 80, 40
and 15, plus full privileges on 10.
I don't expect everyone to agree, but I can't resist posting my two cents!
73 de Alun, N3KIP
whoever
This makes no sense at all. If the so called no-code techs can't do code
now, how would giving them access to code only portion of the bands help
them learn code? If they want to listen to code, they can do that now
without a license. There are code portions of the 2 meter and 6 meter
bands that they have access to now, but I'll bet none of them go there
to practice code! Five wpm isn't that much, if you know the characters
already. If you don't know the characters, then I see no way that you
are going to practice sending code?
Caveat Lector
practicing their code.
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"whoever" <whoever@wherever> wrote in message
news:krGdnSA0D7W...@centurytel.net...
>
>
> Dr. Daffodil Swain wrote:
SNIP>
whoever
I'll bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that
speed. I'm saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the
bands they have now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters
then they can take the code test and they will have all the novice sub
bands to use!
Caveat Lector
--
Caveat Lector (Reader Beware)
Help The New Hams
Someone Helped You
Or did You Forget That ?
"whoever" <whoever@wherever> wrote in message
news:HbqdnSrUo-l...@centurytel.net...
Dee Flint
"Dr. Daffodil Swain" <wa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7GDTd.14354$x53...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
That's what I have thought would be a good way to go. Simply make all Tech
licenses the equivalent of the current Tech with Morse. That gives them the
old Novice code bands and the old "Novice enhancement" of 10m voice.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dee Flint
"whoever" <whoever@wherever> wrote in message
> That's sort of what I meant when I said there are places on 2 and 6. I'll
> bet the ones you worked could do 5 wpm or at least copy at that speed. I'm
> saying the ones that can't do code aren't doing it on the bands they have
> now so why give them more? If they can do it on 6 meters then they can
> take the code test and they will have all the novice sub bands to use!
>
Actually it might give them more incentive to work on it since they could
use it right away.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Bert Craig
news:46qdnTEh_so...@comcast.com...
Sadly, it's exactly the opposite. They appear to have no wish to "work" for
HF privileges. Anything other than a complete "gimme" is unsuitable.
--
bb
Dr. Daffodil Swain wrote:
> Why not maintain the 5WPM requirement in the U.S., but give No-Code
Techs
> access to the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter old novice sub-bands.
Hey, you have an excellent idea that should have flown in the 1970's.
Maybe early 80's. Way too late for that kind of nonsense today.
This would
> allow aspiring upgraders a place to hone their skills without having
to
> just listen to recordings. Also, the sending skills can be developed
as
> well. A side benefit would be hearing the sound of CW again ( even
if it's
> bad) in these largly unused segments. Just a thought.
The people that were once willing to learn Morse Code have done so.
You saw the end of the line some time ago.
bb
Yep, just like when Ron Reagan said, "Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down That
Wall!"
And those East Germans got a free ride to freedom. It was all just
terrible. Freedom turned out to be free after all. They should have
been made to work for it. Uphill both ways. Show the proper attitude
and all that.
I say, "Mr. FCC Chairman Powell, Tear Down That Wall!"
But the bricklayers are busy. Very, very busy.
Buck
wrote:
>There are too many proposals already, that's why the FCC is taking so long,
>in all probability. FWIW, here's mine:-
Well, here is mine too:
1) New Novice Class (upgrade novices to this.)
HF Top 1/3 of SSB and CW bands on each of 80, 40,
15, and 10 meters
Maximum Power 20 watts.
2 meters 147-148 MHz Max 20 Watts
No other V/UHF
2) General Class (Upgrade Techs upon renewal, change of
address, etc.)
Top 2/3 of each cw and ssb band on HF 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17,
15, 12, and all 10 meters. Max Power 500 Watts (even in
novice bands)
Full 60 Meter as regulated.
All V/UHF priviliges up to 500 watts.
3) Amateur Extra Class (Upgrade Advanced upon renewal etc.)
All HF VHF and UHF priviliges with 1500 watts. (except 60 or
others as regulated.)
Require element 1 and the same tough exam.
This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so.
Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.
Buck
--
For what it's worth.
bb
Dee Flint wrote:
> "Dr. Daffodil Swain" <wa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7GDTd.14354$x53...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Why not maintain the 5WPM requirement in the U.S., but give No-Code
Techs
> > access to the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter old novice sub-bands. This
would
> > allow aspiring upgraders a place to hone their skills without
having to
> > just listen to recordings. Also, the sending skills can be
developed as
> > well. A side benefit would be hearing the sound of CW again ( even
if
> > it's
> > bad) in these largly unused segments. Just a thought.
> >
>
> That's what I have thought would be a good way to go.
Yes, yes. And the Titanic should have had a caring CW operator, and a
few more life boats. And Leonardo Decappitico.
Jim thinks it should have sped up and rammed the iceberg. He's a
neocon on icebergology.
;^)
robert casey
>
> 2) General Class (Upgrade Techs upon renewal, change of
> address, etc.)
> Top 2/3 of each cw and ssb band on HF 160, 80, 40, 30, 20, 17,
> 15, 12, and all 10 meters. Max Power 500 Watts (even in
> novice bands)
Power levels are hard to enforce from a remote listening
post. Frequency is easily enforced; that's why they
do subbands for differing license grades.
> Full 60 Meter as regulated.
> All V/UHF priviliges up to 500 watts.
>
> 3) Amateur Extra Class (Upgrade Advanced upon renewal etc.)
> All HF VHF and UHF priviliges with 1500 watts. (except 60 or
> others as regulated.)
> Require element 1 and the same tough exam.
THe FCC was thinking that if they get rid of code tests,
that would reduce workload and administration duties.
Keeping code for extras and not generals doesn't get
them this. In which case they may decide to leave things
as is.
> This may create incentives for upgrade and reward those who do so.
>
> Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.
Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.
robert casey
>
>
>
>
> This makes no sense at all. If the so called no-code techs can't do code
> now, how would giving them access to code only portion of the bands help
> them learn code? If they want to listen to code, they can do that now
> without a license. There are code portions of the 2 meter and 6 meter
> bands that they have access to now, but I'll bet none of them go there
> to practice code!
One feature of letting them use HF code bands is propagation.
They would more likely be able to find someone else to QSL
with somewhere in the country vs only in their county. And
as hams already they should know the protocols about listening
first to see if the freq is in use at the time or not, etc.
Phil Kane
>Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
>privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.
Revalent ?? What dat means English ?? <ggg>
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
robert casey
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey wrote:
>
>
>>Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
>>privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.
>
>
> Revalent ?? What dat means English ?? <ggg>
>
Oh, it's one of those words I can't spell and the stupid
spell checker can't figure out. The word that means stuff
that is logically connected to a goal and sensible. Code
was very realivlent 50 years ago but less so today. Damn
spell checker still can't get it....
Dee Flint
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:GFSTd.7167$Ba3....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> Earn your priviliges. It isn't impossible.
>
>
> Just be sure that the things one needs to do to earn the
> privileges are revalent to modern ham radio.
Why should ham radio be different than other activities? Most of the things
we do to gain privileges in this world are not relevant to the privilege
itself.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dee Flint
This is why real (paper) dictionaries still exist. Just by looking up the
first three letters (rel...) one can scan the entries and find it and thus
find how to spell it. Just an example of how "old" methods have relevance to
modern life.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
K4YZ
bb wrote:
> Dr. Daffodil Swain wrote:
> > Why not maintain the 5WPM requirement in the U.S., but give No-Code
> Techs
> > access to the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter old novice sub-bands.
>
> Hey, you have an excellent idea that should have flown in the 1970's.
> Maybe early 80's. Way too late for that kind of nonsense today.
It DEFINITELY would NOT have "flown" in the 70's, and wouldn't have
even made it to the airport in the 80's. Not only was there NOT the
support of the public for such an idea, the ITU treaty was very much in
place with NO broadbased support in the International Community for
it's removal.
> This would
> > allow aspiring upgraders a place to hone their skills without
having
> to
> > just listen to recordings. Also, the sending skills can be
developed
> as
> > well. A side benefit would be hearing the sound of CW again ( even
> if it's
> > bad) in these largly unused segments. Just a thought.
>
> The people that were once willing to learn Morse Code have done so.
> You saw the end of the line some time ago.
Yet another absolutely stupid assertion unsupported by reasonable
documentation.
Steve, K4YZ
Buck
wrote:
I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.
When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.
Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.
N2...@aol.com
K4YZ wrote:
> I'd go a
> bit further and grandfather all the Advanced guys
> into Extra if for no
> other reason than eliminating some administrative
> headache.
What headache? License class is just one entry in the database.
If any existing Advanced wants the Extra, all they need
do is pass Element 4. Which has been done by at least one third
grader.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Alun L. Palmer
Oh, so everything else is messed up, so ham radio should be messed up too?
Even if I thought it were true, that would still be the worst argument I
have heard yet, ROTFLMAO!
Alun L. Palmer
news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go, but I
wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could get Elemnt 1
abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We all know what
happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
>
> When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
> changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
> "Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
> 25 year argument will finally come to an end.
>
Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but WTH!
If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is an
argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As long as
there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be
over.
> Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
> figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
> sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.
>
>
> Buck
Power limits can't be enforced, but they are the right way to distinguish
between ability levels, and different slices of the same band aren't. The
former mitigates the msitakes of the less qualified much more effectively,
and most people are relatively law abiding. If you had to be an Extra to
own a big linear, most people would think twice.
73 de Alun, N3KIP
Mike Coslo
Mistake number one!
>We all know what
> happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
I think he got his chops busted pretty badly after supporting reductions
in the test requirements (beyond elimination of Element 1) when he
previously said he would never do such a thing.
>
>>When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
>>changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
>>"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
>>25 year argument will finally come to an end.
>>
>
>
> Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but WTH!
>
> If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is an
> argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As long as
> there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be
> over.
Appeasement!
- Mike KB3EIA -
Phil Kane
>> Revalent ?? What dat means English ?? <ggg>
>
>Oh, it's one of those words I can't spell and the stupid
>spell checker can't figure out. The word that means stuff
>that is logically connected to a goal and sensible. Code
>was very realivlent 50 years ago but less so today. Damn
>spell checker still can't get it....
"realivlent" ? Do you mean "real-alive-ment"?? <ggg>
(Good one, Robert....!!)
Phil Kane
>Your points may be valid, but I can't say what the FCC can and can't
>figure out with their equipment. Their equipment is more
>sophisticated than most of what I have seen or used.
Take it from me that measuring the frequency and occupied
bandwidth of a signal is much easier and more efficient for field
enforcement) than making a measurement of transmitter power. The
former can be accomplished by one person at a remote location while
the latter involves simultaneous measurment of transmitter power
output while observing antenna direction/placement and received
signal strength to ensure what is being tested is in fact what was
being used before the inspection. Those observations must be made
at a point sufficiently removed from the antenna to avoid instrument
overload, and therefore requires at least two people and communication
between them.
Dee Flint
"Alun L. Palmer" <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960980736512...@81.174.12.30...
It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very
effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do
is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the
time.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Buck <i...@this.site> wrote in
>news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
<wa2...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
>> deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
>> something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
>> licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
>> and become extra without code.
>
>I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go,
but I
>wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could get
Elemnt 1
>abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We all know
what
>happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
groups on wireless standards (among other things).
Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
update of amateur radio regulations.
>> When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
>> changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
>> "Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so
this
>> 25 year argument will finally come to an end.
>
>Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but
WTH!
That would be since 1913. I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
[ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
U.S. radio regulating agency was created]
The no-code-test amateur radio license advocacy began in
the late 1970s. That grew until the FCC (in copying other
countries' license classes) released FCC 90-53, the NPRM
for creation of the no-code-test Technician class. That was
in 1990 (first two digits indicate the year) and the Report &
Order granting the sixth license class was released in 1991.
>If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is
an
>argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As
long as
>there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be
>over.
Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering
among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals.
Some of those, not receiving their (intrinsic?) due of respect
and admiration from others, grow livid with rage that such
arguments exist today. Poor babies.
The PCTA should be appeased. They've had their way
since 1912 amidst noble backing from Big Brother in
Newington and they demand capitulation to their wishes.
>Power limits can't be enforced, but they are the right way to
distinguish
>between ability levels, and different slices of the same band aren't.
The
>former mitigates the msitakes of the less qualified much more
effectively,
>and most people are relatively law abiding. If you had to be an Extra
to
>own a big linear, most people would think twice.
The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was
to create the artificiality of some being better than others.
"Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and
titles. That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can
get to nobility in this American society.
The ARRL encouraged stepping up the "ladder of success"
in their printed propaganda for several reasons: 1. It was
something members and prospective members wanted to
hear, thus encouraging membership and renewal for same;
2. League hierarchy were conservative traditionalists and
they had all been morsemen long ago in their youth; feeling
that they were self-righteous role models they set up and
maintained morsemanship as the ultimate skill of radio
amateurs; 3. League lobbying of the FCC saved individual
radio amateurs from petitioning the government by
themselves, a complicated process prior to opening up of
the Internet to file petitions and comments within the last
decades. All other "reasons" for support of the "incentive"
licensing are holier-than-thou rationalizations by the PCTA.
What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio
activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity
involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however,
it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more
"superior." By having federal regulations support their
views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior.
Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing
must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones
live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas
and passed those requirements.
Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes
assume way too much authority for themselves. What
must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market
appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety
officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns.
Those who have a foolish need to show they are
"somebody" can purchase one and posture that they
are "official" and thus "very important." :-)
This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications
tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously
evolving in both technology and application. Governments
now have plenty of radios and communications to do
their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that
some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the
cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby.
Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage
and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it. But,
the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank,
status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just
commoners.
Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going. They are
"superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They
know what is good for everyone. :-)
robert casey
>
>
>
> It does not mean that things are messed up. It is simply a fact that a very
> effective way to motivate people to do something that they don't want to do
> is to tie it to a privilege that they very much want. Parents do it all the
> time.
>
It's one thing for parents to do that sort of thing, but the FCC
isn't our parents. What does the FCC get out of requiring
element 1 nowadays? The treaty requirement is gone, and
no other service uses Morse code anymore. Radio equipment
is more reliable today than 50 years ago. Stuff that took
20 vacuum tubes to do are now on a few ICs, and usually it's the
batteries that crap out before anything else goes out. The
old argument that code equipment is simple and thus more
reliable doesn't really mean much today as it did 50 years
ago.
If we want to attract younger people to ham radio, it
would be counter productive to require stuff no longer
relevant to get the license. There's many other activities
that don't require licenses that one could do, and they
could do exactly the interesting parts and ignore the
parts not interesting.
Alun L. Palmer
So treat prospective hams like errant children?
Alun L. Palmer
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
>>Buck <i...@this.site> wrote in
>>news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
>>> deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
>>> something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
>>> licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
>>> and become extra without code.
>>
>>I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go,
>>but I wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could
>>get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We
>>all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
>
> Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
> groups on wireless standards (among other things).
>
> Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
> Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
> element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
> update of amateur radio regulations.
>
That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM to
be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.
>>> When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
>>> changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
>>> "Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
>>> 25 year argument will finally come to an end.
>>
>>Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but
> WTH!
>
> That would be since 1913.
Actually, both of us have the maths wrong. I meant 1927, but that's only 78
years. 1913 would be 92 years. 1927 was the year that the ITU made the
international requirement for the code test.
> I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
> radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
> life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
> actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
> [ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
> U.S. radio regulating agency was created]
>
Not so. Not in 1927 anyway. There were a lot of people using phone back
then. AM, of course.
> The no-code-test amateur radio license advocacy began in
> the late 1970s. That grew until the FCC (in copying other
> countries' license classes) released FCC 90-53, the NPRM
> for creation of the no-code-test Technician class. That was
> in 1990 (first two digits indicate the year) and the Report &
> Order granting the sixth license class was released in 1991.
>
The big argument began in 1927. The code test was proposed by the US
delegation to the ITU as a quid pro quo for the recognition of ham radio as
a service, and their motion was carried. The US had already had a code test
since at least 1916 that I know of, so it wasn't much of a concession for
them. Other countries did not. The UK had no code test before 1927, and
between then and the war had an 'artificial antenna' licence, whereby you
could get a licence by practicing into a dummy load for six months to still
avoid the code test.
The various ITU conferences gradually rolled back the code requirement to
below 1GHz in 1937, 420MHz in 1947, 144MHz in 1967, 30MHz in 1979 and 0 MHz
in 2003. Australia introduced a no code licence in 1952, the UK in 1963 and
the US not until 1991, after many other countries had done so. The FCC did
attempt to promote a no-code licence in the 1970s, but gave up when opposed
by the ARRL (yes, I do have that the right way around!).
About 20 countries have removed the code test since 2003. Japan already for
many years had HF for all licences including the no code 10 Watt 4th class
licence, and Spain once in the past abolished the code test, but brought it
back when their hams couldn't get reciprocal licences elsewhere.
Even in the US I know for a fact that the contoversy was very much alive in
the '70s. But 1927 was the year it really began.
Funny thing isn't it, ye olde tymmers in a relatively high tech hobby? It's
a good thing spark isn't still legal!
N3KIP
Dee Flint
No not at all. Let's use a workplace example instead. Many people, even if
they like their jobs, do have elements of the work they don't like. However
they get a reward or privilege in the form of money for performing those
elements.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dee Flint
Actually it appears as if it IS the code that attracts young people simply
because it is different. It's the middle aged people who seem to object
most strenuously.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dave Heil
>
> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
> >Buck <i...@this.site> wrote in
> >news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
> >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
> <wa2...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> wrote:
> Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering
> among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals.
It would seem to have caused some pain and suffering in at least one
non-code tested individual. After all, nobody was written more here
about morse code tesing in amateur radio than you...and you aren't even
involved in amateur radio. Poor baby.
> The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was
> to create the artificiality of some being better than others.
Incentive license was put into place by the FCC. You'll remember them
as the agency responsible for amateur radio licensing and enforcement.
The "some being better than others" was and is quite real. Those
passing more difficult theory exams and (for some classes) higher speed
morse exams were rewarded with more spectrum. Those like yourself, who
never passed any amateur radio licensing exams, had access to no amateur
radio spectrum.
> "Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and
> titles.
More titles? Really?
> That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can
> get to nobility in this American society.
That it chafes you cause me some mild entertainment.
> What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio
> activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity
> involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however,
> it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more
> "superior." By having federal regulations support their
> views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior.
> Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing
> must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones
> live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas
> and passed those requirements.
More "Fox and the cashews" from our resident curmudgeon? Why are you
worried about who might be superior to whom in amateur radio, Leonard.
You aren't part of amateur radio. Even if you were, there'd always be
many, regardless of license class, whose skills exceeded your own.
> Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes
> assume way too much authority for themselves.
What about those who have passed none of the tests, have no amateur
radio licenses and who are not FCC employees? Do they ever attempt to
assume authority over amateur radio for themselves? Would you be such a
fellow?
> What
> must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market
> appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety
> officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns.
> Those who have a foolish need to show they are
> "somebody" can purchase one and posture that they
> are "official" and thus "very important." :-)
Don't worry, Len. I'm sure the manufacturers will still sell you one.
You can just leave the callsign portion blank. :-)
> This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications
> tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously
> evolving in both technology and application. Governments
> now have plenty of radios and communications to do
> their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that
> some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the
> cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby.
How about if you "realign" yourself to the fact that amateur radio
remains a hobby in which you are not a participant.
> Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage
> and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it.
...and who can pass the exams to do so.
> But,
> the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank,
> status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just
> commoners.
You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.
> Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going.
Actually, you are the guy who MUST keep the argument going. At present,
it isn't going your way.
> They are
> "superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They
> know what is good for everyone. :-)
That's awfully cute, Len. You aren't even involved and you keep telling
us that you know what's best for amateur radio. :-)
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Dave k8...@arrl.net
Phil Kane
>It's one thing for parents to do that sort of thing, but the FCC
>isn't our parents.
Go to your room without supper.... <ggg>
Alun L. Palmer
t...@comcast.com:
>
> "Alun L. Palmer" <elek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns960A66F7C9D0...@81.174.12.30...
>> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:z5Kdnf25bd3...@comcast.com:
>> Children find the code a novelty, but that doesn't mean that they are
>> prepared to learn it
>
> They seem better prepared and more willing than many adults.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
>
>
That's true. Perhaps you should propose a maximum age for ham radio
operators?
Alun L. Palmer
@earthlink.net:
> bb wrote:
>>
>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>
>> > You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
>> > shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
>> > qualifications.
>>
>> Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.
>>
>> He is the one who proposed "No Test International."
>
> Actually, you're just acting silly. Jim made no such proposal.
>
> Dave K8MN
>
He did. Of coutse he was being a devil's advocate, but he was indeed the
one to suggest this.
Dee Flint
Alun L. Palmer
And Morse isn't an element of my operating, but I had to take a test in it.
That's like having to take a typing test and then having a secretary to do
your typing.
Alun L. Palmer
@earthlink.net:
When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to get a
licence, as he will have no excuse
Alun L. Palmer
Children find the code a novelty, but that doesn't mean that they are
prepared to learn it
Dee Flint
Well that example proves the point that you don't know what you may need or
want in the future as secretaries are now going the way of the dodo bird in
large part. Almost all employees that have a need to do correspondence do
their own these days in any company that I have been in. The company I work
for right now let their last secretary go about four years ago.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dave Heil
> And Morse isn't an element of my operating, but I had to take a test in it.
> That's like having to take a typing test and then having a secretary to do
> your typing.
Is it like that? Perhaps you can hire a qualified morse op to send and
receive code for you.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil wrote:
>
> > shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
> > qualifications.
>
bb
Dave Heil wrote:
> You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
> shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
> qualifications.
Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.
He is the one who proposed "No Test International."
> Dave k8...@arrl.net
bb
Phil Kane
>Well that example proves the point that you don't know what you may need or
>want in the future as secretaries are now going the way of the dodo bird in
>large part. Almost all employees that have a need to do correspondence do
>their own these days in any company that I have been in. The company I work
>for right now let their last secretary go about four years ago.
Yeah - most of those who remain have now been retitled as "program
assistants". Some are decent administrators, and some are still
go-fers......
One exception is my daughter-in-law's mother. She's the secretary
to the senior named partner of the biggest law firm in the Pacific
Northwest, and still does the correspondence typing. Of course, her
boss is nearly 90 years old, but still sharp as a tack, I understand.
Alun L. Palmer
Maybe that's a poor example. Perhaps it's more like learning typing to be a
basketball player.
Alun L. Palmer
@earthlink.net:
> "Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
>
>> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to get a
>> licence, as he will have no excuse
>
> Len really has no excuse now. He has had the no code option available
> to him for a long, long time now. He has told us on a number of
> occasions that HF access has little importance and that all the action
> is on the VHF/UHF bands. He could have been there for years with no
> morse testing as an excuse. He hasn't overcome inertia.
>
> When and if morse code testing is removed as part of the process in
> getting an amateur radio license in the U.S., there are just a few "Len"
> scenarios. Leonard could make good on his "Extra right out of the box"
> if we redefine the word "right". Len could continue to do nothing about
> obtaining an amateur radio license (my guess as a likely scenario). Len
> might have to take up an entirely new self-appointment as advocate for
> something else in which he is not involved. He might even take up a
> different area of amateur radio in which to be a bystander. He is
> already priming the pump in rec.radio.amateur.homebrew where he has
> recently entertained the troops.
>
> I understand that Len is already eyeing the British Monarchy as a target
> for future rants. He has discoverd that the royals have rank, status,
> privilege and TITLES. They have a church with a number of parishes
> called Saint-something. They and their supports are conservative
> traditionalists. The entire British Isles are loaded with lodge halls
> repleat with rules for keeping out the riff-raff.
>
> Dave K8MN
>
I'm a VE. Is there some way we could arrange to send three VEs around to
his house when the code test is repealed? We would announce it in advance
of course, to comply with all the rules, on here naturally.
Dave Heil
>
> Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:42220344.9E902FD4
> @earthlink.net:
>
> > "Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
> >
> >> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to get a
> >> licence, as he will have no excuse
> >
> > Len really has no excuse now. He has had the no code option available
> > to him for a long, long time now. He has told us on a number of
> > occasions that HF access has little importance and that all the action
> > is on the VHF/UHF bands. He could have been there for years with no
> > morse testing as an excuse. He hasn't overcome inertia.
> I'm a VE. Is there some way we could arrange to send three VEs around to
> his house when the code test is repealed? We would announce it in advance
> of course, to comply with all the rules, on here naturally.
Brilliant! I don't see how much more convenient it could be.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
It might have seemed that way to you. It isn't evidenced below. In
fact,
someone else suggested it:
__________________________________________________________________________
In article <fhs9b.16269$NM1.7...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Bill Sohl"
<bills...@mindspring.com> writes:
>"N2EY" <n...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030915021846...@mb-m05.aol.com...
>> In article <vm9usff4mpm...@corp.supernews.com>, "Clint"
>> <rattlehead@computronDOTnet> writes:
>> >sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
>> >to anything else.....
>> Yes, it is.
>> First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.
>Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument.
It's a plain and simple fact.
> My point, and I know
>you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
>a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio
knowledge
>or concepts.
It's not an *absolute* need. But it is a big help for amateurs who want
to
learn about radio. That's my point.
>> Although other
>> services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it
>> extensivley,
>> and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station,
not a
>> station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a
very
>> basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more.
>Are you afraid that without a code test, people will "pollute the HF
>airwaves" with bad morse?
Nope, not at all.
>> Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio
equipment,
>> having
>> skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very
simple
>> to
>> very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a
>> newcomer to
>> radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?
>They can build whatever they want.
Doesn't answer the question.
>If they want to start with a simple
>morse
>Xmitter then they will learn at least enough morse to be able to use
it.
>If they don't self train themselves, the rig will be useless to them.
As
>another
>point of reference, when I was going for my AAS in electricl
technology we
>built a 10 watt CW rig as part of the lab work. We tested it using a
dummy
>load and no one had to know even one character of morse to do the lab
work.
And without Morse skill, that project had no practical use once the lab
was
over. With Morse skill, it could have been a very useful transmitter.
There's a big difference between a lab experiment that is done purely
as a
learning tool, and a practical project that not only helps someone
learn *and*
results in a useful radio device.
>> >now, the electrical principals of what a CW
>> >transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
>> >that's comparing apples and oranges.
>> Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person
wants to
>> do is
>> operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig,
why
>> should
>> they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?
>IF that's what you believe then go start NTI (No Theory Int'l).
I'm asking a question. *All* license requirements have to justify
themselves,
don't they? Or is that only true for Morse code tests?
>> >I think most of the PCTA
>> >is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
>> >to keep CW testing alive;
>> Why?
>Actually, they haven't scored even a single point in the arguments
>made to the FCC now or in the past.
Has nothing to do with "disingenous".
>> > I think the true deeper reason lies
>> >somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
>> >as i've stated before.
>> You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.
>Exactly what is it that the PCTAs fear if there is NO morse test
>at all?
I don't "fear" anything from code test removal. My *concern* is the
continuing
downward trend in requirements and qualifications.
73 de Jim, N2EY.
_________________________________________________________________________
It isn't here, though someone else mentions it:
_________________________________________________________________________
In article <3F0AC3F9....@psu.edu>, Mike Coslo <m...@psu.edu> writes:
> Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
>should there be testing for a ham license?
Because we already know what happens with no testing.
> Isn't limiting access to the Airwaves to only those who pass some
kind
>of test Elitist?
Nope.
> What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are
they
>not human and have rights?
Everyone has the right to take the test. Nobody has the right to a
guaranteed
pass on the test.
> As for RF safety, I would point to the successful efforts of
Motorcycle
>riders to abolish helmet rules. It should be the individual's
>responsibility to decide if RF safety matters are important to him or
her.
Actually, that makes sense IF the effects can be contained to just the
person
making the decision. But that's rarely the case.
> As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me
about
>modes of operation that I am not interested in.
I learned about televison screen aspect ratio and interlaced scanning
because
it was in the Extra study guide back when. I've never operated ATV.
> No Test International could be born now!
> Thoughts?
See my rant on replacing the code test with a Smith Chart test.
73 de Jim, N2EY
_________________________________________________________________________
I think that perhaps you're mistaken. Perhaps you can come up with a
statement by Jim advocating such.
Dave K8MN
Dee Flint
[snip]
>>
>> They seem better prepared and more willing than many adults.
>>
>> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's true. Perhaps you should propose a maximum age for ham radio
> operators?
I like that one (smile). It would keep out a couple of bad eggs that I know
about. However, the problem is that we will all reach that "maximum age" if
the Lord is willing.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Dave Heil
> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to get a
> licence, as he will have no excuse
Len really has no excuse now. He has had the no code option available
to him for a long, long time now. He has told us on a number of
occasions that HF access has little importance and that all the action
is on the VHF/UHF bands. He could have been there for years with no
morse testing as an excuse. He hasn't overcome inertia.
When and if morse code testing is removed as part of the process in
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote in news:1109453914.521433.288070
>@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
>>>Buck <i...@this.site> wrote in
>>>news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
<wa2...@ix.netcom.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle.
We
>>>all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
>>
>> Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
>> groups on wireless standards (among other things).
>>
>> Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
>> Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
>> element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
>> update of amateur radio regulations.
>>
>That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM
to
>be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.
NCI cannot have "failed" an NPRM that hasn't been released yet.
>>>Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of,
but
>> WTH!
>>
>> That would be since 1913.
>
>Actually, both of us have the maths wrong. I meant 1927, but that's
only 78
>years. 1913 would be 92 years. 1927 was the year that the ITU made the
>international requirement for the code test.
The first U.S. radio regulating agency came into being in 1912.
There's been a small controvery in here about the first code
test for amateurs in here, others saying the code test began
a year after that agency was created.
2003 is the year in which the ITU revised most of S25, eliminating
the artificial requirement of morsemanship for an amateur radio
license having below-30-MHz privileges. That's a 76-year span
from 1927. Radio as a communications medium is only 108 years
old.
>> I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
>> radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
>> life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
>> actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
>> [ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
>> U.S. radio regulating agency was created]
>
>Not so. Not in 1927 anyway. There were a lot of people using phone
back
>then. AM, of course.
In 1912, between 1909 (when the Radio Club of America started)
and 1912, morse code was about the ONLY way to communicate
on early radio. ARRL wasn't formed until 1914...as a local New
England radio club of 3 members...with Maxim as the leader who
thought it a neat idea to (virtually) "hack" the commercial telegram
services using their spark radios. :-)
In 1912 NOBODY was using the Reggie Fessenden AM system
of putting microphones in series with the antenna lead-in. :-)
I won't argue the CCITT "arguments" back in 1927. As you said,
the USA already had a morse code test then. The ARRL was
already 13 years old and on the ascendency, although NOT yet
the big "leader" in national amateur representation. Not yet
despite Maxim Going To Washington (!) to "restore ham radio"
from its WW1 shut-down. The Thomas H. White early USA
radio regulation history on the web has all of the early gory
details on that, several items the ARRL won't repeat about
themselves.
>The various ITU conferences gradually rolled back the code requirement
to
>below 1GHz in 1937, 420MHz in 1947, 144MHz in 1967, 30MHz in 1979 and
0 MHz
>in 2003. Australia introduced a no code licence in 1952, the UK in
1963 and
>the US not until 1991, after many other countries had done so. The FCC
did
>attempt to promote a no-code licence in the 1970s, but gave up when
opposed
>by the ARRL (yes, I do have that the right way around!).
I'm familiar with what the ARRL did on lobbying the FCC to make
the regulations "their way." :-)
Problem is, lots of League "Believers" get outraged whenever
someone points out their clay feet.
>About 20 countries have removed the code test since 2003. Japan
already for
>many years had HF for all licences including the no code 10 Watt 4th
class
>licence, and Spain once in the past abolished the code test, but
brought it
>back when their hams couldn't get reciprocal licences elsewhere.
>
>Even in the US I know for a fact that the contoversy was very much
alive in
>the '70s. But 1927 was the year it really began.
The turn-down of a no-code license by the FCC in the 1970s
pretty much quashed my interest in U.S. amateur radio (along
with thousands of others). The first personal computer kits of
1975-1976 steered my interests away from radio (also done
by thousands of others). That was the blazing of a new path
leading to the future, not the recreation of what others have done
in copying the pioneers of the airwaves back in the past.
1927 may have been the international year of controversy but
in the USA the code test has been there since the first U.S.
radio regulating agency...92 years of the 108-year-old
existance of radio.
>Funny thing isn't it, ye olde tymmers in a relatively high tech hobby?
It's
>a good thing spark isn't still legal!
If so, the ham magazines would have ads for computer controlled,
software-defined SPARK transceivers! :-) The olde-tymers
would be bragging up a storm of arcs and sparks, using knife
switches and using point-to-point wiring (all with flexible coils on
them) with polished woodcraft bases gleaming in candlelight.
If you check out the ARRL website you will see that QST is
starting a "new feature" of explaining what all those knobs on
the front panels are doing to the readership. Good grief, what
is a "high tech hobby" coming to?!?!?
It apparently has boiled down to the League's editors that most
of their membership are a bunch of technical ignorants who
never learned anything beyond being whoopee-wonderful
morsemen. Rather disgusting when they make like "superior"
beings because they passed a high-rate morse test once.
Wow, an extra license that even a 9-year-old can pass! Lots
of "incentive" to "join the amateur brotherhood" by learning
morse code (and be just like a 9-year-old).
It's worse when some insufferable, self-righteous "mama"
wants to "discipline children as parents do" in here.
Alun L. Palmer
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 3:17 am
>>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote in news:1109453914.521433.288070
>>@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
>>>>Buck <i...@this.site> wrote in
>>>>news:2n31215cusi9ne4uq...@4ax.com:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
>>>>> <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>>get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle.
>>>>We all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?
>>>
>>> Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
>>> groups on wireless standards (among other things).
>>>
>>> Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
>>> Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
>>> element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
>>> update of amateur radio regulations.
>>>
>>That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM
>>to be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.
>
> NCI cannot have "failed" an NPRM that hasn't been released yet.
They were trying to get administrative action, i.e. no petitions, no NPRM,
just have the FCC remove the requirement. Not surprisingly, they failed.
Now we have 19 petitions and a long wait for an NPRM
>
<lots snipped>
>
> It's worse when some insufferable, self-righteous "mama"
> wants to "discipline children as parents do" in here.
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
>
Alun
Lloyd A Davies
Lets give everyone EXTRA CLASS!!!!!
Yeah yeah yeah!
Tax breaks for buying HF radios....
robert casey
> Well that example proves the point that you don't know what you may need or
> want in the future as secretaries are now going the way of the dodo bird in
> large part. Almost all employees that have a need to do correspondence do
> their own these days in any company that I have been in. The company I work
> for right now let their last secretary go about four years ago.
>
And we all use word processor software to do that writing. Cut
and paste, fix spelling errors, rewrite something that was weak,
and such. Back in the olden days secretaries took care of
typing stuff onto paper without error. Today we write on computers,
edit and whatnot, and once we have it the way we want it, send
the file to the printer. One pretty much had to do that
via longhand on paper notepads that would then be given to
the secretary to type up. She would fix the spelling errors
and some of the grammar and hopefully not munge the concepts.
And if that did happen we'd have to get that part retyped.
Took forever.
There are technical writers who rewrite engineer writing
into something hopefully better written. But the engineer
has to review it to be sure that the meaning didn't get
munged.
robert casey
>
> They were trying to get administrative action, i.e. no petitions, no NPRM,
> just have the FCC remove the requirement. Not surprisingly, they failed.
> Now we have 19 petitions and a long wait for an NPRM
>
>
And it's probably a low priority item on the FCC's agenda
anyway. Whenever they get around to it....
robert casey
> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to get a
> licence, as he will have no excuse
Someone will start a new organization "No License International".
"NLI"
:-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
>
>Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:42220344.9E902FD4
>@earthlink.net:
>
>> "Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
>>
>>> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to
get a
>>> licence, as he will have no excuse
>>
>> Len really has no excuse now. He has had the no code option
available
<snip of clotted stuff>
>> I understand that Len is already eyeing the British Monarchy as a
target
>> for future rants. He has discoverd that the royals have rank,
status,
>> privilege and TITLES. They have a church with a number of parishes
>> called Saint-something. They and their supports are conservative
>> traditionalists. The entire British Isles are loaded with lodge
halls
>> repleat with rules for keeping out the riff-raff.
>>
>> Dave K8MN
>
>I'm a VE. Is there some way we could arrange to send three VEs around
to
>his house when the code test is repealed? We would announce it in
advance
>of course, to comply with all the rules, on here naturally.
What IS the point of all that?
All those who demand EXCLUSIVITY on entrance to this newsgroup
can do so to the proper authorities. Paul Schleck will have the
procedure. RESTRICTING access will be wonderful for all those
who want to lock out all but "their kind" (I should spell
that "thier" in their honor but won't) and they won't suffer
all the outrage of seeing the reality of the rest of the radio
world when they are called wrong. Just think, their own
"clubhouse" where others can't be admitted (nyah, nyah).
Keep everything SECRET, "hams-eyes-only" stuff. Nobody else
can or should know anything.
Tsk.
Years ago, poor Dave wanted to bluster and brag about his really
neat CW on State Department radio in Africa during the '80s. He
made it sound like a major diplomatic save-the-world kind of thing,
even mentioned being in "Guinea-Bisseau" one of those litle-
known and who-cares kind of ex-colonies. He wanted to parade
like a Big Shot using CW for some kind of vital mission when,
supposedly, RTTY wouldn't get through. [spell Shot with an i]
Poor Dave got trumped. He ran into someone who had bigger
experience in government communications that didn't need to
brag. Dave tried and tried to beat that guy down, by any means
possible. He was the "superior!" He ruled. All bow down to
him and all that sort of rot. Dave never forgot.
Now Dave insists on rewriting the past, of saying I wrote one
thing but "really wanted" something different. He has stretched
that to include "topics I will discuss in the future!" Amazing.
So, by all means, have three VEs come to my house when the
code test is eliminated. Hopefully they will come from the east
coast first-class, paying their own way. My address is on my
old Ham Radio Magazine bylines, hasn't changed. ["three
wiseguys out of the east," so to speak]
So, what are those three wisemen, er, VEs going to do?
Administer a TEST whether I want to take one or not? I don't
think so. My representative Mr. Glock will address them in
that case. [he is very accurate]
The three VEs can wait at the curb. If they behave, I might
invite them to the back patio for milk and cookies. Or not.
Now, if EXCLUSIVITY is so very desireable, feel free to try for
private access-by-permission only. That will insulate all the
participants in their "clubhouse" and they can cuss out all
on the outside without being hurt in the process. They know
it all anyway and don't need "outsider" information. They are
"superior!"
Dave Heil
>
> From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 9:43 am
> >
> >Dave Heil <k8...@earthlink.net> wrote in news:42220344.9E902FD4
> >@earthlink.net:
> >
> >> "Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
> >>
> >>> When they do repeal the code test, we will all have to nag Len to
> get a
> >>> licence, as he will have no excuse
> >>
> >> Len really has no excuse now. He has had the no code option
> available
>
> <snip of clotted stuff>
>
> >> I understand that Len is already eyeing the British Monarchy as a
> target
> >> for future rants. He has discoverd that the royals have rank,
> status,
> >> privilege and TITLES. They have a church with a number of parishes
> >> called Saint-something. They and their supports are conservative
> >> traditionalists. The entire British Isles are loaded with lodge
> halls
> >> repleat with rules for keeping out the riff-raff.
> >I'm a VE. Is there some way we could arrange to send three VEs around
> to
> >his house when the code test is repealed? We would announce it in
> advance
> >of course, to comply with all the rules, on here naturally.
>
> What IS the point of all that?
>
> All those who demand EXCLUSIVITY on entrance to this newsgroup
> can do so to the proper authorities. Paul Schleck will have the
> procedure. RESTRICTING access will be wonderful for all those
> who want to lock out all but "their kind" (I should spell
> that "thier" in their honor but won't) and they won't suffer
> all the outrage of seeing the reality of the rest of the radio
> world when they are called wrong. Just think, their own
> "clubhouse" where others can't be admitted (nyah, nyah).
Hams already have such a place and the authorities support it. You
can't be admitted.
> Keep everything SECRET, "hams-eyes-only" stuff. Nobody else
> can or should know anything.
If we use morse, it'll certainly be a secret from you.
> Tsk.
>
> Years ago, poor Dave wanted to bluster and brag about his really
> neat CW on State Department radio in Africa during the '80s.
No bluster and brag to it, disingenuous old boy, just statements of
fact.
You to humbrage to the facts. You still do. Tough.
> He
> made it sound like a major diplomatic save-the-world kind of thing,
> even mentioned being in "Guinea-Bisseau" one of those litle-
> known and who-cares kind of ex-colonies.
I just have to ask--what does mentioning that it took place in
Guinea-Bissau have to do with making something sound like a
"save-the-world kind of thing"? Now, knowing that all of the material
is archived at Google, is there anything you'd like to amend about your
claim?
> He wanted to parade
> like a Big Shot using CW for some kind of vital mission when,
> supposedly, RTTY wouldn't get through. [spell Shot with an i]
Any amendments at all? Otherwise, Steve's frequent claim that you are a
liar is about to wham you in the can again. I can provide an accurate
account of what I wrote and what you wrote.
> Poor Dave got trumped.
...not by you, I didn't.
> He ran into someone who had bigger
> experience in government communications that didn't need to
> brag.
Now I know that we're not talking about you. You have less experience
and you've posted endless accounts of your past exploits.
> Dave tried and tried to beat that guy down, by any means
> possible. He was the "superior!" He ruled. All bow down to
> him and all that sort of rot. Dave never forgot.
No, he never forgot and he's about to display your comments of the time
so that all can see what a fabricator you are.
> Now Dave insists on rewriting the past, of saying I wrote one
> thing but "really wanted" something different.
Rewriting, Leonard? What was rewritten?
> He has stretched
> that to include "topics I will discuss in the future!" Amazing.
Buy a sense of humor, Leonard.
> So, by all means, have three VEs come to my house when the
> code test is eliminated. Hopefully they will come from the east
> coast first-class, paying their own way. My address is on my
> old Ham Radio Magazine bylines, hasn't changed. ["three
> wiseguys out of the east," so to speak]
>
> So, what are those three wisemen, er, VEs going to do?
>
> Administer a TEST whether I want to take one or not? I don't
> think so. My representative Mr. Glock will address them in
> that case. [he is very accurate]
Just what does that mean, Len?
> The three VEs can wait at the curb. If they behave, I might
> invite them to the back patio for milk and cookies. Or not.
>
> Now, if EXCLUSIVITY is so very desireable, feel free to try for
> private access-by-permission only. That will insulate all the
> participants in their "clubhouse" and they can cuss out all
> on the outside without being hurt in the process. They know
> it all anyway and don't need "outsider" information. They are
> "superior!"
Classic Anderson--the rantings of a crackpot.
Dave K8MN
K4YZ
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> Administer a TEST whether I want to take one or not? I don't
> think so. My representative Mr. Glock will address them in
> that case. [he is very accurate]
BBBBWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! Lennie making THREATENING
insinuations with firearms! ! ! ! !
W H A T A P U T Z ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> Poor Dave got trumped. He ran into someone who had bigger
> experience in government communications that didn't need to
> brag.
Hmmmmmmmmmm...Who would that be, Lennie?
It's sure not you. According to your own "CV", you've never been
CHOP of ANY government communications facility. You weren't even a
military radio operator while you were in the Army...Just a radio
mechanic.
> Dave tried and tried to beat that guy down, by any means
> possible. He was the "superior!" He ruled. All bow down to
> him and all that sort of rot. Dave never forgot.
Forgot what?
No one's ever "beat (him) down", nor has Dave tried to beat anyone
else down.
He has, of course, repeatedly humiliated you, but then you keep
supplying us with the tools with which to do it....
> Now Dave insists on rewriting the past, of saying I wrote one
> thing but "really wanted" something different. He has stretched
> that to include "topics I will discuss in the future!" Amazing.
Coming from a guy who has tried to embellish his military service
with the sacrifices of guys who were KIA 3 years before he even
enlisted, I find your insinuation that anyone else is trying to
"rewrit(e) the past" to be morbidly offensive....Not that you care, of
course.
> So, by all means, have three VEs come to my house when the
> code test is eliminated. Hopefully they will come from the east
> coast first-class, paying their own way. My address is on my
> old Ham Radio Magazine bylines, hasn't changed. ["three
> wiseguys out of the east," so to speak]
Your address isn't the ONLY thing you haven't changed, Lennie.
Maybe that's why the Old Lady didn't favor you with
offspring...?!?!
> So, what are those three wisemen, er, VEs going to do?
>
> Administer a TEST whether I want to take one or not? I don't
> think so. My representative Mr. Glock will address them in
> that case. [he is very accurate]
Not in YOUR hands, he's not! (Still busting a gut over that
Lennism! W H A T A H O O T ! ! ! ! )
> The three VEs can wait at the curb. If they behave, I might
> invite them to the back patio for milk and cookies. Or not.
>
> Now, if EXCLUSIVITY is so very desireable, feel free to try for
> private access-by-permission only. That will insulate all the
> participants in their "clubhouse" and they can cuss out all
> on the outside without being hurt in the process. They know
> it all anyway and don't need "outsider" information. They are
> "superior!"
A five year old with an NCT callsign and a used HT is superior to
you, Lennie, so it doesn't take much!
Steve, K4YZ
bb
Probably why much business correspondence is just so much mumbo jumbo,
or maybe it was outsourced to China.
Dave Heil
> Years ago, poor Dave wanted to bluster and brag about his really
> neat CW on State Department radio in Africa during the '80s. He
> made it sound like a major diplomatic save-the-world kind of thing,
> even mentioned being in "Guinea-Bisseau" one of those litle-
> known and who-cares kind of ex-colonies. He wanted to parade
> like a Big Shot using CW for some kind of vital mission when,
> supposedly, RTTY wouldn't get through. [spell Shot with an i]
>
> Poor Dave got trumped. He ran into someone who had bigger
> experience in government communications that didn't need to
> brag. Dave tried and tried to beat that guy down, by any means
> possible. He was the "superior!" He ruled. All bow down to
> him and all that sort of rot. Dave never forgot.
Google never forgot:
from me on Jan. 1, 1998:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Len, you tried to give me a lesson in the history of radio and you
also
twisted some dates and events but, to what end? What was that all
about? FYI: I was handling the QSYs, openings and closings for a
government 75 baud circuit via CW from late '87 through late '89 from
Guinea-Bissau. Guess we didn't know CW was obsolete, huh?
Dave Heil OH2/K8MN"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Len Anderson on Jan. 5, 1998:
No CW Test
Jan 5 1998, 12:00 am
>Subject: Re: Can't we all just get along?
>From: Dave Heil <k...@clinet.fi>
>Date: Mon, Jan 5, 1998 00:44 EST
>Message-id: <34B07331....@clinet.fi>
>You failed reading comprehension. My post stated that CW was used to
>coordinate openings/closings, QSYs of an RTTY circuit.
Ok, let me requote, word for word, what you originally wrote:
>>>about? FYI: I was handling the QSYs, opening and closings for a
>>>government 75 baud circuit via CW from late '87 through late '89
from
>>>Guinea-Bissau. Guess we didn't know CW was obsolete, huh?
Firstly, you didn't qualify "government." Since you call from a
Finnish server, have an OH2 (Finland) slash on your signature,
and Guinea-Bissau is an independent country, one needs
telepathy to accurately attach "US" in front of "government."
Secondly you wrote "75 baud circuit via CW..." which could be a
high-speed CW one as much as TTY; "baud" is the old rate name
in all telegraphy.
If this was a United States government link, that slow a rate sounds
suspicious considering that the military and State Department were
already starting to upgrade to 110 Baud (100 WPM) TTY in the
late 1960s. Commercial TTY users were doing the same at the
same time. Lots of older 60 WPM TTY machines were becoming
available as surplus by the mid-1970s, many being converted for
TDD use by hearing-impaired persons courtesy of many clubs of
ex-telephone-company-workers.
Now, I'll grant you that surplus telecomm equipment COULD have
gone into use in Guinea-Bissau considering that country subsists
largely on grant money from other nations and such aid is of minor
value. [the USA is contributing $2.5 million to them in proposed
1998 aid grants] It's difficult to envision a US government circuit
running that slow some 20 years after starting to upgrade to 100
WPM machinery.
>Now we get a geography lesson from Len. It was a U.S. government
>circuit, Len. It wasn't 75 baud CW; it was 75 baud RTTY with CW to
>coordinate it.
There's LOTS of geographic, socio-political information available
on the Web, many site choices. ARRL publications don't carry
much of such information. Anyone with Web access can look them
up. As to "lessons," do you think everyone knows ALL the small
and emerging nations of the world?
Why does an RTTY circuit (of any speed) need "CW to
coordinate it?" RTTY circuits have been used on HF since the
1930s without any extra CW circuit for "coordination." It's a very
simple task to tune in an 170 to 850 Hz shift RTTY signal and lock
onto mark and space with an RTTY demod. "R-Y" generators
were common in old 5-level days, even one-print-line "Fox Test"
generators. ???
Len Anderson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
from me on Jan. 6, 1998:
Dave Heil
Jan 6 1998, 12:00 am show options
No CW Test wrote:
> Ok, let me requote, word for word, what you originally wrote:
> >>>about? FYI: I was handling the QSYs, opening and closings for a
> >>>government 75 baud circuit via CW from late '87 through late '89
from
> >>>Guinea-Bissau. Guess we didn't know CW was obsolete, huh?
> Firstly, you didn't qualify "government." Since you call from a
> Finnish server, have an OH2 (Finland) slash on your signature,
> and Guinea-Bissau is an independent country, one needs
> telepathy to accurately attach "US" in front of "government."
> Secondly you wrote "75 baud circuit via CW..." which could be a
> high-speed CW one as much as TTY; "baud" is the old rate name
> in all telegraphy.
Len, you are perhaps the greatest picker of nits I've encountered in
ages. There aren't many 75 baud (100 wpm) CW circuits. Regarding the
Finnish server and /OH2 and my talk of Guinea-Bissau (or Sierra Leone
or
Botswana) I guess you assumed I'm some sort of commo mercenary, selling
my skills to the highest bidder. It doesn't really matter which
government in the end for purposes of comprehension, does it?
> If this was a United States government link, that slow a rate sounds
> suspicious considering that the military and State Department were
> already starting to upgrade to 110 Baud (100 WPM) TTY in the
> late 1960s. Commercial TTY users were doing the same at the
> same time. Lots of older 60 WPM TTY machines were becoming
> available as surplus by the mid-1970s, many being converted for
> TDD use by hearing-impaired persons courtesy of many clubs of
> ex-telephone-company-workers.
Yeah, that's it, Len. It was suspicious. I had some sinister purpose
in deliberately posting lies. Thanks for letting me know what the
State
Department (my agency) was using.
By the way, 45 baud equates to 60 wpm.
> Now, I'll grant you that surplus telecomm equipment COULD have
> gone into use in Guinea-Bissau considering that country subsists
> largely on grant money from other nations and such aid is of minor
> value. [the USA is contributing $2.5 million to them in proposed
> 1998 aid grants] It's difficult to envision a US government circuit
> running that slow some 20 years after starting to upgrade to 100
> WPM machinery.
Do your math homework regarding baud rates and we'll talk again and
please try to get over that difficulty in envisioning things. For
practice, try envisioning message traffic plus overhead for the
synchronous circuit. Throw in QRM, QRN, fading, multipath, etc.
> >Now we get a geography lesson from Len. It was a U.S. government
> >circuit, Len. It wasn't 75 baud CW; it was 75 baud RTTY with CW to
> >coordinate it.
> There's LOTS of geographic, socio-political information available
> on the Web, many site choices. ARRL publications don't carry
> much of such information. Anyone with Web access can look them
> up. As to "lessons," do you think everyone knows ALL the small
> and emerging nations of the world?
No, I don't. Many amateurs I worked from J52US wanted to know what
part
of South America I was in. Again, it didn't really relate to my post.
I'm not certain why ARRL publications WOULD carry such information.
I'd
first turn to an atlas or a geography book. The only problem is that
you don't find much about digital data circuits in an atlas.
> Why does an RTTY circuit (of any speed) need "CW to
> coordinate it?" RTTY circuits have been used on HF since the
> 1930s without any extra CW circuit for "coordination."
How do you know that no cw cicuit was needed for coordination, Len?
> It's a very
> simple task to tune in an 170 to 850 Hz shift RTTY signal and lock
> onto mark and space with an RTTY demod. "R-Y" generators
> were common in old 5-level days, even one-print-line "Fox Test"
> generators. ???
Here's a lesson for you, Len:
Synchronous circuits are not the same as async circuits. There's a
clocking factor thrown in to the equation. Not only that, there are
many, many, many such signals in designated portions of the bands. How
would you know which was the right one? Nobody constantly stands over
such a circuit which is pumping out traffic throughout the working day.
Let's say that propagation changes and you lose sync. You need a way
to
let the other station know where you'll be transmitting and where you'd
like him to transmit so that communication can be re-established.
That is accomplished via use of one of many CW guard frequencies.
When opening in the morning, you'd want to let the distant end know
that
you were ready to open and to state, again, where each of you should
be.
In sending a closure. You'd want to let him know your last sent and
received channel number and what time you'll reopen. Finally, though
equipment was redundant, there can be times when all of the RTTY
equipment is down. You'd need a way to let the distant end know that
you were down; why you were down, about how long you'd be down.
> Len Anderson
Dave OH2/K8MN
downtown Helsinki
but not working for the Finnish Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
from me on Jan. 5, 1998:
Dave Heil
Jan 5 1998, 12:00 am show options
No CW Test wrote:
> >I would also ask what government was it that used
> >that circuit? The US government has been using encrypted
> >RTTY since at least the 60's and I'd question that
> >any USA government entity was still in a CW mode
> >as late as 1987.
You failed reading comprehension. My post stated that CW was used to
coordinate openings/closings, QSYs of an RTTY circuit.
> Guinea-Bissau is a small, underdeveloped former Portuguese
> colony of 1.1 million population just south of Senegal in West
> Africa. They are listed as one of the poorest nations in the
> world on several website reference sources. The country has
> a per capita Gross Domestic Product of $235 (1995 estimate) and
> less than 5000 telephones. I'm sure that ANY rapid
> communications mode would be useful in such an environment,
> even 75 Baud CW.
> Len Anderson
Now we get a geography lesson from Len. It was a U.S. government
circuit, Len. It wasn't 75 baud CW; it was 75 baud RTTY with CW to
coordinate it.
Dave OH2/K8MN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Len Anderson on Jan. 8, 1998
No CW Test
Jan 8 1998, 12:00 am show options
Not being a tested high-speed telepath, it is difficult to comprehend
something NOT written. All any of us can do is read the actual
words written. Comprehension takes place on written words, not
the unwritten ones. You could have said "US circuit" or
identified that you were working for the US State Department, but
you did not do that until later...as in:
>Yeah, that's it, Len. It was suspicious. I had some sinister purpose
>in deliberately posting lies. Thanks for letting me know what the
State
>Department (my agency) was using.
>Do your math homework regarding baud rates and we'll talk again and
>please try to get over that difficulty in envisioning things. For
>practice, try envisioning message traffic plus overhead for the
>synchronous circuit. Throw in QRM, QRN, fading, multipath, etc.
I broke into HF communications in the US Army Signal Corps at
Army station ADA in Tokyo, beginning in 1953. I realize that
primitive Army throughput of 220 to 240 thousand messages a
month, trans-Pacific to San Francisco, Seattle, Anchorage,
Honolulu, Guam, Manila, Okinawa, Pusan, and Seoul using 27
transmitters ranging from 1 to 40 KW output plus the then-
largest receiving site (shared with USAF) was not as good as
what State could accomplish. Since none of the circuits sending
nearly a quarter million messages a month were not CW, I have
little observation of CW nets.
>Here's a lesson for you, Len:
Thank you, I'm always looking for new knowledge.
>Synchronous circuits are not the same as async circuits. There's a
>clocking factor thrown in to the equation. Not only that, there are
>many, many, many such signals in designated portions of the bands.
How
>would you know which was the right one? Nobody constantly stands over
>such a circuit which is pumping out traffic throughout the working
day.
>Let's say that propagation changes and you lose sync. You need a way
to
>let the other station know where you'll be transmitting and where
you'd
>like him to transmit so that communication can be re-established.
>That is accomplished via use of one of many CW guard frequencies.
While I don't have many details of modern-day military signal
operations for Force XXI and the Digital Army, I can only draw
on texts and personal observations. According to NAVSHIPS
0967-255-0010 "Principles of Telegraphy (Teletypewriter)," June
1967, the difference between "synchronous" and "asynchronous"
is the absence/presence of start and stop bits. Since the old old
5-level TTYs at ADA always ran with start and stop bits, even
with the 4-loop time division multiplexers (Navy contract) on four
radio circuits, synchronous TTY is a stranger...I lept over that to
direct digital in industry. However, ADA never had any specific
problems with the propagation to Frisco, Honolulu, Seattle, or
Manila compared to the single-channel RTTY and SSB circuits.
At one end of the entire second floor of a converted warehouse
that housed the manual paper tape relay center was Control. It
was a largish room with acoustic insulation since the 200+ TTY
units (mostly chadless printer-punches and transmit distributor
racks) made a lot of noise. Control had eight handsets for the
first voice channel on each SSB circuit. Old Model 19s were
there as the teleprinter orderwires for non-voice circuits. There
were three loops for as many "Fox Test" generators always
running on the floor above in the Carrier room. If there was some
extreme problem to one circuit's location, there were work-arounds
through
other sites but those were not used as far
as I knew from a year at the Chou Kogyo relay center. If a
circuit was down, the printer made garble or sat idle; when it came
back up, printers synchronized themselves.
In modern Army communications, digital teleprinter circuits
synchronize themselves, even the ones that are encrypted. That
goes all the way down to manpack SINCGARS radios. No problem with
alleged
propagation variations affecting comm...it is
either there or not. Voice is the orderwire coordinator...or it is
another digital radio circuit. While CW "could" be used, it isn't
essential to "maintaining synchronization" any more than a voice
contact can "maintain synch."
Between Army service and later aerospace experience, I missed
the Model 28 era, even a lot of the Model 3x family except those
used as early computer terminals. Techniques could have
changed, of course, but teleprinters were fairly well established
in methods and principles at the end of the 1940s. Improvements
were external to the mechanisms such as the Navy MUX rack
(primitive, it used 7-pin miniature thyratrons as "memory
elements") which worked very well. Being all-manual, I missed
such improvements as the old AN/FGC-30 switcher not used at
ADA and could only view the many modern switchers/routers
used in today's Army. CW played NO role in maintenance of
the new or old signal centers...so it is difficult to imagine an
intermediary period where CW was essential to maintain circuits
as you described.
>Finally, though
>equipment was redundant, there can be times when all of the RTTY
>equipment is down. You'd need a way to let the distant end know that
>you were down; why you were down, about how long you'd be down.
In three years at ADA, there was only one period of about 4 to
5 hours when a Pacific area radio blackout happened. It had
been somewhat predicted but everyone, Army, Navy, USAF,
all knew when it occurred...and when it was expected to be back
up. Even CW could not get through such a situation...;-)
At all other times the 24-hour-a-day ORDERWIRES were there
to coordinate everything. No problem.
Len Anderson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Leonard, munch on the words. No boast or brag on my part.
If by trumping me, you meant that your word output exceeded mine, I
suppose you win. If you intended to trump me with facts, you failed
miserably. You weren't where I was. You weren't doing the job I was.
You quote scads of information on how the Army handled RTTY circuits
fifty years ago but not a single shred of information on how the U.S.
Department of State conducted AFRECONE communications.
In short, you were all wet then and you lied about the events now.
You know less of State Department communications than you know of
amateur radio. You were not and are not a part of either.
Any word on the mysterious "other" who was supposed to have "trumped"
me?
Dave K8MN