RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 1st 03, 10:41 PM

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I've already answered that question many times, but the
short form is that without code testing, there is no incentive
for radio amateurs to learn the code at all. (snip)

But, again, why should there be "incentive" for hams to learn code?

Because it's not a skill that most people will have learned elsewhere.

Invalid as to federal regulations.

The FCC was not chartered in 1934 to be some kind of educational
organization encouraging or promoting morse code use.

Most prospective hams already know how to read, write, talk and type. Most dod
not know any Morse code.

Irrelevant as to federal regulations.

Notice
that I'm not asking why a person would want to learn code on their own.
Instead, I'm asking why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS or
FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single operating mode (it's
the only mode specifically skill tested)?

See above.

Invalid "see." The FCC is the ONLY agency licensing radio amateurs in
the USA and was never chartered 69 years ago to promote or encourage
morse code.

Retaining continued skill in Morse/CW has no negative
effect on the development of technology in the future.
That's an NCTA red herring.

I didn't say it had a negative effect, Larry. Instead, I asked you how
this (code skill testing) will help to keep the ARS abreast of modern
technology, insuring our continued value to others? I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we should
be mainly focused)?

Some claim that Morse Code testing is at odds with the purpose of the amateur
radio service as a fundamentally technical service. But in the practical
experience of thousands of amateurs, the opposite is true.

There are over 600 thousand US amateur radio licensees. Please show
proof of your claim of "practical experience of thousands of amateurs..."

Try not to misdirect into areas not under discussion.

Skill in Morse Code, even at a very basic level, permits amateurs to use radio
equipment ranging from very simple to highly advanced designs, and
technologies of almost any vintage.

The purpose of the US amateur radio service, as defined in Part 97.1,
Title 47 CFR, is NOT to be some living museum of radio or radio arts.

Skill at morse code, at any level, is NOT required or even necessary
to OPERATE radio equipment, any complexity, any vintage, that does
NOT use on-off keying coding for communication.

Morse Code skill encourages amateurs to actually build
their own radio equipment by offering an easy first step, and a growth path
that leads to almost any usable technology.

Unproven. Unjustifiable.

Morse code skill is a psychomotor skill which has NO direct or even
remote relationship to building, designing, or even conceiving of radio
equipment.

It must be remembered that most
radio amateurs are self-trained and do not have access to professional level
resources.

One "professional level resource" is a BOOK.

There are thousands of text books available on the market today which
are not published by the ARRL.

Few amateurs today would consider a single-sideband transceiver as a
first project, but the home construction of Morse Code equipment is possible
for almost all amateurs.

"Home construction of morse code equipment" can consist of a switch
(code key), wire, and buzzer. Hardly rocket science.

I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home construction, having
built
my first amateur station at age 13. Since then I have built many more projects
of increasing complexity, and much of my current amateur radio station is
entirely homemade.

So, the way you did it is the role model for all others?

"Homemade" has diverged from older definitions of design and build to
just assembling kits, such as from Elecraft.

Kit building is not exactly "home made" and certainly not DESIGNED
by the builder/assembler.

The construction of my early stations led me to an
electrical engineering degree and career.

The majority of EEs of today got there from INTEREST in electrical
and electronic engineering and NOT by having a "ham" license
first.

The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician class license has not
resulted in a technical revolution in amateur radio from newly-licensed
"technically qualified" amateurs.

False analogy.

Most (by photo evidence, overwhelmingly so) communications equipment
used by radio amateurs is READY-BUILT, designed by others,
assembled and tested by others. It has been so for over three decades.
See any collection of amateur radio related periodicals to confirm that.

The "technical revolution in amateur radio" has come from RADIO EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS. See any collection of amateur radio related periodicals
to confirm that. See any collection of radio related periodicals to confirm
that.

USE of already designed and manufactured radio equipment is simply USE
and NOT "advancing some technical art in radio."

Instead, the continued progress in amateur
technical efforts continues to be mostly the result of work done by
experienced
amateurs, even though the Technician class license has not had a code test for
more than 12 years.

ENTIRELY FALSE analogy. Unrelated and unproven.

All vague inference.

Trying to "convince" others by using false and misleading inferences is very
"bad form" and equivalent to the vague generalities of the BPL advocates in
response to FCC Docket 03-104, none of whom have submitted any factual
information, just marketing phrases.