RadioBanter - View Single Post - No anticipated change in Morse Requirement for a while

January 19th 05, 01:21 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article t, robert casey
writes:

That's the first thing YOU have gotten right, Lennie.

Just get the damm license, you seem to know enough
to get it without much study, Len.

Tsk. It hasn't been my intention to "get a damn license." :-)

At one time you said it *was* your intention, Len. So the above is obviously
and provably untrue - unless you were lying back then.

January 19, 2000, you said otherwise, Len. You said you were "going for
Extra right out of the box". You haven't done it.

Perhaps you changed your mind.

I can't see such a personal identification as applying to my
advocacy to remove the morse code test from any test.

Others can see what you cannot or will not admit.

The subject of morse code testing should stand by itself,
without all the hoopla over test-passing.

Agreed!

The reality of the radio world is that morse code mode is
either dead or dying or was never born in every other radio
service but amateur radio hobby activity.

Morse Code is extensively used by radio amateurs, however. Today, in 2005.
It's a big part of amateur radio - today.

An amateur radio license authorizes its holder to operate amateur radio
stations - not the stations of any other licensed radio service. Conversely,
*only* an amateur radio license authorizes its holder to operate amateur radio
stations - no other radio license does so. Therefore, it is logical that the
requirements for an amateur radio license should consist primarily of skills
and knowledge connected with the amateur radio service.

Even then, morse
code is used only by a minority of those licensed as radio
amateurs.

If you consider the total number of amateur radio licensees, that's probably
true, because of the enormous number of fourth-class Japanese amateurs.

However, if you consider *FCC licensed* radio amateurs, that statement may or
may not be true. Repeated polls and surveys on the subject have shown that a
majority of US hams do indeed use Morse Code at least some of the time.

Even if your claim is true, Morse Code *is* used by a large percentage of FCC
licensed radio amateurs. Were license requirements to be limited to only those
things done by a majority of radio amateurs, there would be almost no test at
all for an amateur radio license.

The attempt to "justify" (realistic word is rationalize) the
morse code test is specious.

In your opinion. Others have very different opinions.

It serves no real purpose to
anyone desiring an amateur radio license...other than to act
as an "initiation rite" that is kept only because so many others
in the past were required to take that test.

Your opinion again.

The popularity and use of Morse Code in amateur radio is a sound reason for
there to be a test for it as part of the license process. The required testing
level has been reduced to a very basic level, and accomodations added, so it is
not a barrier to the vast majority of those seeking an amateur radio license.

The federal
government is NOT obliged to maintain fraternal order
initiation rites.

It is only your opinion that the test is such.

That is something for membership groups,
not something for anything codified into law as regulations.

The argument maintenance of the long-timers boils down to
(via brainwashing by even longer-timers) them having to take
the morse test, therefore all others have to take it also.

No, it doesn't.

The argument boils down to the idea that amateurs use the code, therefore a
test for it is reasonable.

Amateur radio is unique among radio services in that licensed amateurs have
unequalled freedom to design, build, repair, and operate radio equipment,
without undue certification requirements. Technical knowledge, skill,
experience and education are among the bases and purposes of the ARS. Morse
Code facilitates these goals because equipment for the mode can be simple or
complex, highly effective, and use a wide variety of technologies.

That
would be valid only if the ARS were an Amateur Radiotelegraphy
Service. It is not.

Radiotelegraphy is a large part of the Amateur Radio Service.

The morse code test in test element 1 is considered by the FCC
as inapplicable to their need to determine the licensing
qualification of amateur radio license applicants.

That's what FCC said in 1999 - more than 5 years ago. But they have chosen not
to remove it yet, despite many proposals to do so.

Perhaps they have changed their mind.

Nor have most other countries chosen to remove it, even though the
treaty requirement was removed more than 18 months ago. Oddly
enough, Japan retains its code testing for 3 of its 4 amateur radio
license classes.

It remains
(apparently) under pressure by the long-timers and the ARRL
(not the oldest radio club) keeping it in regulations..

How do you know this is true? Who in the FCC told you their reasons?

More important, though, is the fact that the commentary to FCC by *individuals*
has shown majority support for continuation of code testing. This was true in
the comments to 98-143, and in the total comments to the 18 or so proposals
on the subject filed with FCC since July 2003.

because
they all feel that it is "necessary" (they had to take a morse
test, therefore all others have to).

Perhaps *some* feel that way. Not all.

I don't feel that way.

Some morse code devotees consider the test necessary to
"preserve and protect" manual telegraphy skills.

Is that a bad thing?

The FCC is
not chartered as either a historic preservation agency nor as an
academic one. Its lawful activity is simply to regulate ALL U.S.
civil radio.

Regulation includes the protection and preservation of important
resources. That's why we have national parks and wilderness
areas. One aspect of amateur radio *is* similar to that of the
national parks and wilderness areas.

Unless there has been some covert activity to circumvent the
Constitution of the United States, all U.S. citizens have the right
to "petition their government with their grievances."

That's right. *ALL* citizens. That includes those who are licensed,
and those who are not.

In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT required.

Who ever said it was?

The important and unanswered question is: why is someone who is not
a licensed radio amateur, nor a manufacturer of amateur radio equipment,
nor otherwise involved in amateur radio other than newsgroup postings, so
obsessed with the regulations for an amateur radio license?

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license."

Who, Len? Be specific.

I do not so "wish."

Maybe not now, but five years ago tomorrow you said something very different.

That is NOT a "requirement" nor is there any "motivation" to do so.

That's *your* problem.

The elimination of the morse code test is simply long overdue and
should be done for the benefit of ALL citizens, not some aging
fraternity boys wanting to keep an initiation rite forced upon others
for no reason but their own personal desires.

That's simply your opinion, plus some gratuitous insults thrown in. Nothing
more.

Those individuals
are NOT a regulatory agency at all despite their implications.

Who, Len? Be specific.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

Then do so, rather than simply deriding those who disagree with you.

You would do better to copy the methods of others and attempt
defamation of the person of those wishing to eliminate the code test.

??

What in the world does that mean?

Seems that you are *requesting* that I "attempt defamation of the person" of
others. Including you.

Why should I do that?

That IS the way of those PCTA extras found in here.

Who, Len? Give some examples. But be prepared to also see references to how
*you* have behaved towards those who disagree with you.