On Jan 7, 4:01�pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:16 am, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
wrote:
"The test" is long gone and FCC won't bring it back. FCC won't preser
ve
our standards and values - we have to do it.
OK, you lost me here. Are these the same standards and values that
were propagated by the code tested licensees on the upper phone
portions on HF?

Now you lost me!

If you're referring to the few folks who make some parts of the 'phone
bands rather nasty, consider the following:

1) Those folks aren't using Morse Code when they behave badly on the
air

2) Those folks also passed written exams that included lots of
questions about the rules & regs

Yes, but the whole argument was "Morse code makes you a better person"
Apparently not in their case.

I don't think "Morse code makes you a better person" was their *whole*
argument.

Let me put it another way:

There's no single one-time test that will absolutely guarantee that
everyone who passes it will be a well-behaved, law-abiding amateur
radio operator. Some bad apples will always squeak through. We see this
in professions and other walks of life that have much more
rigorous admission requirements.

But that doesn't mean testing and other license requirements have no
effect! IOW, just because a test isn't an absolutely perfect filter
doesn't mean it has no effect at all and should be removed.

Suppose that in 1980 someone had developed a wonderful new way to learn
Morse Code that would take a typical person from 0 to 25 wpm in 1 hour,
simply by watching a videotape.

Do you think the code tests would still have been an issue?

I'm certain that they would.

Perhaps I should have worded that differently. What I meant was, do you
think there would have been any real effort to get rid of them? I
don't.

All those that passed via that method of
learning would be scorned as "Drive-thru" Licensees. The standard
comments built on the "But 'real hams'" had to...." mindset.

How would anyone know who used what method to learn unless the person
told them?

Entry level at the time meant simple equipment. Getting a CW transmitt
er
on the air was the first step. "How can I communicate with a hand key?
"
With Morse code of course. Plugging a microphone into the key jack won
't
work.

Not sure which time you're referring to. Please elaborate.

[ comment about the relevancy to this discussion is at the bottom. ]

Prior to the Novice license, the easiest way to get on the air with a
limited budget and skill set was to make a simple CW transmitter. Of
course, to be able to use it, you're going to have to be able to send
and receive Morse code, unless the only QSL cards you want to receive
are from OO's and / or the FCC.

Agreed!

Yes, you could get your ticket, throw your key away and buy phone stuff
but it was still easier to just get on the air with Morse code.

"Easier" in the sense that you could do more with simple, inexpensive
HF equipment.

The Novice license was introduced as a way to get on the air with a
limited skill set, and spend time ON THE AIR to give you the incentive
to upgrade your skills with the promise of frequency agility and phone
operation when you upgraded.

Before 1951, the "standard" US amateur licenses were the Class B and C,
which became the General and Conditional. The Novice was meant as a
sort of "learner's permit" so that new hams could learn-by-doing rather
than having to go straight to 13 wpm code and the General written exam
just to get started. That's why the license wasn't renewable and had a
shorter term.

And as Jeff Davis said, Morse Code was the lingua franca of
communications back in the early days.

And was used by other radio services well into the 1990s. A lot depends
on what you consider "the early days".

I know, and the FAA still uses CW to ID beacons. But the write things
like ".-.. .- -..-" on the maps right next to LAX rather than force
pilots to learn Morse code.

What I meant is that the use of Morse Code for communication by other
radio services continued well into the 1990s.

And if I remember right, joining the military (as an example) didn't
require you to learn code to use a rifle. If you wanted to learn code
and get a different job, that was up to you.

Amateur radio isn't the military.

I just can't see inter agency communications between police, fire,
medical �and the Red Cross being handled by some guy wearing a
celluloid eye shade, sleeve garters and hunched over a code key. *

Why not?

Because human life and safety is _dependent_ on quick and accurate
communications. By ANYONE

Quick and accurate requires skill and training.

The FBI had their own HF nets using Morse Code. The military and
maritime folks used for many decades.

The main reason other services stopped using Morse Code was that they
didn't want to pay skilled operators. It was cheaper for them to buy
more-complex equipment.

The key word here is "had". The additional expenses in the design and
deployment of the new equipment is there to remove the possibility of
human error and make things simple enough for anyone to operate.

Human error is still possible; in fact, it may be more possible if
anyone is allowed to operate.

The big issue IMHO was and is co$t. Skilled personnel cost more than
the equipment that replaced them. Heck, way back in 1912, most ships
with wireless only carried one operator. The Titanic, largest ship in
the world at the time, carried only two. The reason was cost, nothing
more; it took a disaster and regulations to force the shipping
companies to man the wireless 24/7.

But Amateur Radio is all about *operating*.

Operating is not all of it.

Agreed. But operating is what you need a license for. A non-amateur
can do almost everything else.

Nor is operating via a specific mode.

Or with a specific technology, or on a specific band.

If anything, it is all about communication and having the skill
set (both technical and operational) required to communicate in
the mode with which you are granted the right to use.

Exactly! And since Morse Code is one of those modes...

Or what that has to do with the discussion.

My comments at the beginning of this discussion were specific to my
opinion that the requirements for joining the CWops club were
restrictive and elitist. With a tongue in cheek reference to the
Masonic Lodge with their secret handshakes and rituals along with
having to be vetted by existing members.

Well, we could apply for a grant from the Ministry of Silly Walks...

However, as I suspected, the discussion has drifted into the standard
"People that haven't had to learn code like *I* did, or "make the
effort" (as it is sometimes referred to) are somehow less than real
hams."

I don't see where I wrote anything like that.

Pointing out that the requirements are different now isn't saying that.
I have met many amateurs who are completely unaware of the history and
changes in Amateur Radio that led to the present system.

For example, I have met many amateurs who thought that, before
"incentive licensing", all US amateurs witha General or higher had all
privileges, dating back to the beginning of licensing. Every one was
surprised to learn that such was not the case before 1953.

People should use Morse code as a mode of communicating because it is
a skill and one they should be proud of. NOT because it somehow makes
others less than them.

Agreed!

But at the same time, it isn't wrong to have skills, use them, promote
them, and be proud of them.

The same could be said of those who chose to
use SSB, AM, PSK, RTTY, FM, EME, packet radio and so forth. But, oddly
you don't hear them talking down to everyone else that do not share
their enthusiasm for their preferred mode of communication.

I have heard and seen folks who use SSB refer to AM as "ancient
modulation"

I have heard and seen folks who use AM refer to SSB as "Donald Duck",
"slop-bucket" and other terms

I have heard and seen all sorts of derogatory terms used for those who
use and promote the use of Morse Code by those who don't use the mode.

There are lots of other examples. "Life's too short for QRP", is one -
how is a QRPer supposed to take that?

Not by all - just by some. I don't think that all should be blamed for
the actions of a few.

73 de Jim, N2EY