On Sep 21, 6:30�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:
I do have a [treaty] source. [3 listed]

But if the treaty had not required a code test for the 220 MHz Tech in
the license change of 1951, do you think the hams of the day (both
inside and outside the FCC) would have allowed a codeless ham to
exist?

Maybe. Nobody really knows; the treaty in place at the time prevented
it.

It would have been scary to even express those thoughts aloud
in those days, considering what you hear now, 50+ years later...

Not at all. As early as 1936, there were ideas put forth for a
nocodetest amateur license in the pages of QST. (The 1936 idea was for
a basic 5 and 2-1/2 meter license that would allow a low-power local
communications without a code test).

But whenever the discussion came up, the overwhelming majority opposed
the idea.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.
When were these "dark days"?

Incentive Licensing. I have always voted with my wallet.

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Oddly enough, btw, the League was not the only nor the first to
propose a return to a more-progressive license structure in 1963.
There were at least ten proposals, some submitted before ARRL's.

Ironically, the original 1963 ARRL proposal simply called for a return
to the pre-1953 rules where you needed an Advanced or Extra to use
'phone on most of the HF ham bands.

btw, one of the driving forces behind the changes were letters
received by FCC from *nonhams* complaining about the relative techical
ignorance of many hams of the day. Those letters essentially said that
while it used to be that a ham could be counted on to be reasonably
qualified in technical and practical knowledge of radio, the early
1960s version could not. Don't know how true that was but it sure got
FCC's attention.

The license is for operating, not building.

The Technician was meant for those who were more interested in VHF/UHF
experimentation than HF operating.

But only the kind of experimentation that requires operating. Anybody
can build practically anything radio they want in their basement; the
license is only needed to put it on the air.

The license is for operating, not building.

IMHO the social-engineering experiment of the Tech license just didn't
work. The original Technician (220 and up only) got very few takers
until 6 and 2 meters were added. This was due in large part to the
fact that, at the time, there was no manufactured ham gear for 220 and
up. And througout its history, most Techs have not been experimenters
in the way that FCC envisioned.

What's worse is that the Tech license, even before it lost its code
test, created a divide in amateur radio between those who had HF and
those who didn't.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:
Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?

I've heard that argument, but that's not why they quit the code test.

Yes, it is. It's what's behind every argument given to remove it.
People who were going to use the mode don't care about a basic test of
the mode at all, they just pass it and move on.

The reasons for a code test that once applied are no longer valid.

*Some* of the reasons are no longer valid.

No
more military CW. No more ship to shore CW. No more WW2 ops needed.

Actually, Morse Code was in regular US military use long after WW2. At
least into the late 1960s for the US Navy and into the late 1990s for
the US Coast Guard. And there is still some use of Morse Code for
maritime use. But very, very little.

More important, those reasons aren't the only ones, nor even the major
ones, to have a code test. Even in the old days, most hams would never
be military or commercial radio operators, so why require a code test
for the few who would be?

The main reason to have a test for something to get a ham radio
license is because *hams* do the thing, not because other radio
services do the thing, or do not.

Ect ect ect. CW is now really obsolete for anything but hobby use.

Did you see the article about the ham who was injured while hiking in
the Pacific Northwest, and called for help using CW? Just happened a
few days ago. Broken leg in a situation like that is a lot more than
"nothing but hobby use".

Making involuntary human modems has little value to the government any
more.

Being a skilled radio operator isn't being "an involuntary human
modem".

What's really changed is that the idea of needing "radio operators" at
all. Look at what has happened to commercial licensing, for example.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all.

The ham test should be about *modern* technology.

Why? With most ham gear today, there is no real need to understand how
the rig works in order to use it. Most have no real tune-up
adjustments at all.

And who gets to decide what is "modern" anyway? Radio today is mostly
VHF/UHF, not HF. It's mostly channelized, too, and highly automated.
Most radios today don't even have a tuning knob!

Testing about past
obsolete technology and practices such as tubes, mechanical RTTY, and
code ect just doesn't make sense.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Very few hams today use mechanical RTTY machines, so that technology
isn't on the test. But the basic technology - FSK 5-level Baudot-coded
RTTY - is still in wide use by hams, and is on the test.

Most hams nowadays only use tubes in high power RF amplifiers. A
smaller number use tubes for other applications, including entire tube-
based stations, but their number is relatively small. So there are
only a few tube questions (if any) on the test.

But Morse Code is in wide use by hams on the ham bands. It's not
"obsolete" at all. On the HF bands it is second only to SSB voice and
is far ahead of many other modes in popularity.

Shouldn't a license to use an amateur station include tests on what
amateurs actually do?

What really killed the code test, IMHO, is that a few people
complained loud enough and long enough about it. And if you read their
complaints, you see that what they're really saying is that they don't
want to learn something they do not intend to use. Particularly
something that requires some effort to learn, which cannot be learned
by reading a book or watching a video.

I think what *really* burned some folks' bacon was that, since most
people don't come to ham radio with Morse Code knowledge, it put all
new hams on the same level in one way. The Ph.D and the big bucks
businessman found themselves at the same table as the grade-schooler
when it came to learning code. Worse, the grade-schooler might very
well out-do them! Some folks do not like that kind of equality.

I still remember the reactions of some (not many) older, more-
experienced hams when they found out I was a teenage Extra. It
*really* bothered them!

73 de Jim, N2EY