On Mar 27, 3:28 pm, Klystron wrote:
Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
sending text - no more and no less.

I disagree! Morse Code is more than simply a method of sending text.

Two methods that send the same text
are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
or a telegraph key is used to send it.

I disagree again! Lots of differences, for example, a simple telegraph
key can be made in a few minutes with simple tools. Keyboards are a
bit more work.

A method that sends those blocks
of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
prone method is inferior.

If the only factors considered are speed and accuracy, that's true.
But there are other
factors when it comes to things like amateur radio - bandwidth,
required equipment,
etc.

Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like
ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case.
Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general,
the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is
easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is
also considered better.

See above about what factors are considered.

So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse
can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the
ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio.

One can compare all sorts of things, and have the results come out
differently
depending on the factors considered. Is rollerblading "better" than
running because
the same person can go faster and farther for the same effort?

The real point of the Jay Leno clip was to show that the assumption of
"newer is faster/better" turned out to be exactly wrong. The audience
and the woman Leno talked to were *sure* the text-messager would win,
yet Morse Code was faster.

If all you want to do is send text from point A to point B, there are
lots of good modes.

But consider these factors:

1) Morse Code can be manually encoded and decoded by humans and
machines. RTTY, ASCII, etc., cannot, at least in practical terms.
(Yes, I once got to the point where I could usually recognize "RYRYRY"
and "W3ABT" in 45.45 baud Baudot FSK, but have you ever met anyone who
could have conversations that way?)

2) Morse Code can be done with audio or video - by watching a flashing
light, text on a screen, or simply listening to it. Audio reception is
a big advantage in situations where a visual display isn't practical.

3) Morse Code can be implemented with a bare minimum of simple
equipment, or with complex equipment, or anything in between.

There are lots more, that's just a sample.

None of this proves the idea that all radio amateurs must use Morse
Code, or must pass some sort of test on it, etc. That issue has been
decided (at least in the USA).

---

Should radio amateurs not *use* Morse Code any more?

73 de Jim, N2EY