(No No Not George) wrote in message . com...
Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe.

Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised.

Look here is DouGay Adair N8WWM trolling cb groups again why am I not surprised.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" 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. (snip)


I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50
years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as
easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how
are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test?


(snip) Morse code/CW is unique and
cannot be covered by the written tests.
Actually (snip)


It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that
emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back
where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Nobody's forcing anybody to use it,
just learn it...and only for HF privies.


Given another statement in your reply ("unique skill...decoded by the
human brain"), that statement is rather illogical, isn't it? If the "skill"
tested is the ability to decode code with the human brain, it would seem one
would have to "use" that ability at some level just to pass the test.


At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of
discipline than proficiency. That is where
the true crux lies.


The FCC doesn't have a mandate to test discipline. And, beyond the rules
and good operating practices, we shouldn't expect it either. After all,
we're not the military or a karate school.


They've already reduced the emphasis by
creating the no-code Technician ticket and
further by reducing the required code
speed for the General and Extra tickets.


As I told Dee, the reasons quoted in my earlier message for reducing
code (changes over last 50 years, no system dependant on code in many years,
and so on) could just as easily be used to argue against a code test of any
kind. In other words, how are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of
a 13 wpm test?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Dwight, how about giving us a good
rational reason to continue testing at
all. I can break every reason with
either rationale or minor modifications
to equipment.


The FCC itself has already effectively provided that answer when they said
"the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with the basis and purpose of the service." Clearly, the written
tests do comport with the basis and purpose of the service, and I doubt many
of us, including you, would disagree.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

cb and shortwave groups trimmed


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

some snippage

As I figured, the BPL internet access concept is going down fast.



A test of BPL was run in Alabama. A engineer friend of mine told me it was
not coming up to what was advertised in Birmingham. Repeaters were needed
way too often, thus jacking up the expense.

Unless the FCC is totally braindead I think BPL, as proposed will die by
itself. However what they want is INCREASE the power of BPL over and above
what is presently allowed under part 15.

They may take that route. We shall see.


I think they should be told that "Ya can't polish a Turd!"

- Mike KB3EIA -

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.


Get the foul mouthed red necked yahoos off of HF and I'll consider wasting
my time to learn CW to meet and exceed your criteria.

At 5-wpm, it's more a demonstration of discipline than proficiency. That
is
where the true crux lies.


A better demonstration of discipline would be if CW trained amateurs would
stop using HF like it was 11 meters.