RadioBanter - View Single Post - Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

[email protected] · October 5th 06, 03:49 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.

What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.

Just read Part 97.

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.

That's not true, Len.

I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

But you've never been a licensed pilot, Len.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used.

That's not true, Len.

I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

That's nice. What does any of that have to do with "formalism" or
amateur radio?

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.

I've listened to it. Quite a mess.

CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that.

How do you know for sure, Len? CB use does not require a license.

I've been doing that since 1959.

Do you think Amateur Radio should become more like cb, Len?

Do you think your experience in cb somehow makes you qualified to tell
experienced radio amateurs how Amateur Radio should be run?

You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications
Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a
communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a
cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or
radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three
Americans has one. Do you have one. I do.

The number is probably closer to one in two Americans, Len. Maybe even
more - in many families, there is one or even no wired phone, but
everyone in the family has their own cell phone.

However, the cellphone is completely unlike Amateur Radio. The user has
very little control over the radio part of a cellphone. S/he can turn
the cellphone on and off, and that's about the level of absolute
control.

All cell phone radio functions are actually controlled by the cellphone
network/system. The user *requests* various functions, such as
intitiating a call, but the system decides how to handle the request -
even whether to handle it.

Cell phones are actually just the end device in an enormous
communications network - almost all of which does *not* use radio!

Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs

Don't you forget it.

I'm proud of it.

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs.

So why are you here, lecturing to amateurs?

LEGAL operation.

Maybe.

In most cases of such work NO license was required
by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only
CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use]

When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER
operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than
causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you
transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have
transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that
since 1953...53 years ago.

So what, Len? Why do you live in the past?

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

It's up to you, Len.

I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz.

But not with your own station.

What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

You didn't, Len. You got to push a button on a system that was the
result of many people's work - and paid for by the taxpayers.

If someone makes a telephone call that goes through a geosynchronous
satellite, they've used microwave communications over a path longer
than 50,000 miles.

Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply"
of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES"
anything of the government or contracted work by the
government.

The taxpayers pay for it, yes. The government subsidizes it, because
the market cannot support it.

In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

Nope. The part of your taxes that went to pay for it were tiny. Perhaps
one small part was paid for by your taxes - if that much.

But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your
INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that
they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer."

I never wrote that they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer.", Len.

You are mistaken, and misquoting.

I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

You don't own that equipment, Len. It's that simple.

YOU don't think your remark was an "insult."

I've asked both you and Brian Burke to explain why the word "subsidize"
is an insult. So far, you have not explained.

I even posted the defintion, straight from Webster's. Perhaps you
should look it up.

You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since.

I've said that no insult was intended. You have not explained what the
insult is.

Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!

Try to bring it home, Len....

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.