RadioBanter - View Single Post - You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.

[email protected]

wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am

the CW has seen the light that being they betrayed the ARS by listening
to the ARRL what 50 years ago

I don't think the ARRL "betrayed the ARS". I believe that they
sincerely thought that morsemanship was THEN a topmost skill
of US radio amtaeurs.

The FCC thought so too - well into the 1970s.

Fifty years ago would be 1956 and not
long after the passing of ARRL co-founder (and president-for-
life) Hiram Percy Maxim.

Maxim died in 1936. 1956 was twenty years later.

"T.O.M." used his editorial pages
to promote morsemanship in the 1920s and 1930s.

He also promoted many other things on those pages, such as technical
progress, operating skills, public service, and the observance of
government regulations.

The original core group of the ARRL were go-getters and smart
enough to realize that, to make enough money as an organization
that came out on top, PUBLICATIONS were the key to survival.

Publications were one way to support the organization. They also
supported amateur radio by offering low-cost information specifically
for the radio amateur.

ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders,
formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national
organization, the Radio Club of America.

But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown
- just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national
organization.

One of the cofounders, Charles H. Stewart, 3ZS, lived right here in
Radnor, PA. Hardly "local" in those days.

There were lots of
"national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually
dropped out.

Name some.

RCA still exists but is not much concerned with
amateur radio.

It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be
honorary and historical.

Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major
presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on
retainer from the ARRL.

There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from
contacting FCC directly.

ARRL kept promoting themselves as
"representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but
suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions.

Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly,
and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS.

That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website
going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The
ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying.

All ECFS did was to make it easier to petition and comment.

Back in the 1960s, when the changes known as "incentive licensing" were
being debated, FCC received over 6000 comments from individuals and
groups. There were at least 10 proposals besides the ARRL's. Those
other proposals were taken seriously enough by FCC to get RM numbers.

The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of
Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on
all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code
testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments
were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship
with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland
security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep
01]

??

The fact is that the majority of individuals who commented supported
the retention of at least some Morse Code testing. The majority also
supported elimination of the Morse Code test for the General Class
license.

What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their
pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on
changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory
(by administrations) morse testing for any license having
below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all
administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE
WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation.

Not true! Not true at all, Len.

The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their
policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to
ITU-R S25.5.

Given the strong support from many other member countries to change
S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would
be majority support to change S25.5.

After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for
nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL
versus the World" situation.

Wrong again, Len!

In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code
test for General but retaining it for Extra.

The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
eliminated for General.

The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test
retained for Extra.

The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but
they *are* majorities.

Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new
millennium.

And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it.

Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those
inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything
reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-)

yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is
just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain
child of the ARRL

It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was
never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE,
RAND, and STATUS.

"RAND"?

Do you mean Remington Rand, Ayn Rand, or the South African monetary
unit?

That was VERY important to the controlling
coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than
others...in a hobby activity.

Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len. Do try to get your
history straight.

The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to
*return* to a system something like that which existed before February
1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it
being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned
earlier.

btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names
rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL.

What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of
"good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION
and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship.

How so?

Did you forget about the written tests?

The
morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already
far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that
morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio
service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that
all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four
decades after the 1930s.

How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len?

Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam
War?

The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so
that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special
guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism.

Should accomplishment not be rewarded?

Combining
"vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect
setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they
WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the
window...rank, status, title RULED.

btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's
been more than six and a half years now...

Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten.
Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing
nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. yawn

amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders

That's all they have left in this new millennium, Mark.

Some of them, such as Blow Code and Hambrecht still think
they are "better than others" in all aspects, not just
morsemanship.

Well, maybe they are, Len. Or maybe they aren't.

Why does it bother you so much?

Do you have a need to look down on everyone?

They LIKE that. So much so that they are
in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank,
status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the
code test is eliminated.

How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code
test is eliminated?

They will LOSE their "better
than you" rationalization.

How?

If they really are better than you, they'll still be better without the
test. And vice-versa.

Internally the sky will have
fallen on their self-perceptions.

Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally
fascinating.

Me too. Amateur radio particularly.

So much so that I made a career choice of
it while studying for an entirely different sort of
work.

Funded by the taxpayers, too.

Professional work, not some amateur dabbling,
yet I liked to make electronic things in my home
workshop.

Does being paid for something make someone automatically "better", Len?

Things other than work-related tasks. It
is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work."

But not rewarding enough for you to get an amateur radio license, it
seems.

Or have you gotten that Extra out of its box, as you told us you were
going to do, way back on January 19, 2000?

I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have
seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on
long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working.

Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several
hundred people trained to do the job.

That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do -
self-funded and largely self-trained.

Years
later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working
on morsemanship?"

Is youth somehow wrong, Len?

He (or she) can go shove it
somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done
more than I in radio communications...which they have
NOT done yet in here.

I see.

What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you
that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react?

Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a
"ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats,
before technology had fully gotten with the semi-
conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get
over most of the world via PCs and the Internet.

What about your posting of January 19, 2000?

Why
IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the
1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying
to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology
and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW.

Then why do you tell us so much about your past?

btw, if you are *not* interested in becoming a ham, why are you so
vocal about the requirements?

If some dumb**** wants to moralize about "working" and
"investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation
and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not
about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self-
abuse/mis-use.

You sure seem to spend a lot of effort arguing about it, though.

Why?

If these self-styled emperors want to
flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep
on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly).

Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror.....

Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed.
Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at
least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate.
Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000.

Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet?