View Single Post
  #194   Report Post  
Old January 4th 04, 04:57 PM
Bill Sohl
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:
[snip] The FCC
recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."
They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications

systems
outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in

communications
over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has

been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the

ability
to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would

"allow
the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically

inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to

learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."


That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in
the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only

5wpm
in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the
stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't

happened
so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid.


I have never accepted the argument that ending code testing would
result in more technically inclined folks becoming hams, BUT...
until access to the full spectrum of ham privileges comes with
no code test at all, the statement that: "That (more tech inclined hams)
hasn't happened so the reason (ending some code testing, but
not all) for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid" IS
on its own merits invalid.

You mean the second most popular mode
in use today doesn't rate as a valid test
requirement determinator. (snip)


If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the
second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the
third, fourth or fifth, most popular modes?

By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most

popular
mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the

sheer
numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on

a
regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today.


The poster should have qualified that by saying "second most popular mode

on
HF". The usage of FM on HF is very strictly limited and regulated and

isn't
appropriate for use on bands that are as narrow as the HF bands.

As far as testing for the other modes:

Voice - we've all been talking quite some time, the only additional
knowledge needed is procedural, which can easily be covered by the written
tests


BUT, there are some hams who have NO voice ability at all.
Should they be prohibited from becoming hams? Should we
have a medical waiver for those voice handicapped hams?

SSTV - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the
correct operating procedures, both of which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Digital modes - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then

following
the correct operating procedures, both which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests.


Wrong. The ability (the skill) to send/recieve may not
be a written test aspect, but the theory, signal characteristics,
and some other aspects can be and are on the writtens.

Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to

requiring
candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259

to
coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen.


Why would you want that? Frankly, soldering has never been
a strong point with me...yet I've been able to do quite well
technically in my career as well as ham radio. I can "get by"
but prefer to have others do some of the connector soldering
chores for me.

Additionally, a soldering test, especially a PL-259 would be
too subjective a determination. Even soldering can't be learned by
all hams. Would we then have a soldering waiver for blind hams
or other hams handicapped by some affliction that didn't allow
them to ever pass a soldering test?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK