On Sep 19, 7:16�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
N2EY wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:
Do you have the [treaty] sources?
Look up the results of the various World Radio Conferences down
through the years. A good starting place would be the 1947 Atlantic
City conference.

So you don't have a source.

No, I do have a source.

Here are the facts:

Amateur radio was first officially recognized as a separate radio
service at the Paris radio conference of 1927. As part of the
regulations/treaty, all amateurs had to be Morse Code tested.

At the Atlantic City radio conference of 1947, the Morse Code test
requirement was modified so that a Morse Code test was not required
for amateur licenses that only allowed operation above 1000 MHz. This
rule was in effect when the Technician Class license was created by
FCC in 1951. There's an article explaining all this in QST for
October, 1947.

At the Geneva radio conference of 1959, the requirement was modified
so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur licenses that
only allowed operation above 144 MHz. This is explained in a QST
article in the issue for March, 1960.

At the radio conference of 1979, commonly called "WARC-79", which
resulted in the 30, 17 and 12 meter bands, the requirement was
modified so that a Morse Code test was not required for amateur
licenses that only allowed operation above 30 MHz. This is explained
in a QST article in the issue for February, 1980.

So the USA could not have created the Technician license in 1951
without a code test unless that license had not allowed any operation
below 1000 MHz.

The QST archives are useful if you're a member of ARRL.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.

When were these "dark days"?

You need to look further back than the 1980s.

I tried hard to find a source to prove me right, but no luck. That's
why I wanted to see your source that proved me wrong.

It's not about "luck", it's about knowing the history.

That if a license is supposed to be about experimenting, and Morse
Code/CW is the best mode to use for much of that experimenting, it
made sense to require a basic Morse Code test for that license.

Wouldn't it be better to give a solder test to an experimenter?

No. The license is for operating, not building. Anyone can build
whatever equipment they want with no license at all, but to put it on
the air legally requires a license.

Actually I don't think the 5 wpm Morse Code test was too much to ask.
But that's ancient history now.

Is that the old 'weeder' reason or the old 'I had to do it' reason?

Neither. It's the "reasonable requirement to know what you are doing"
reason.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:

Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?
Those who want to use it will learn it on their own, and those who
don't will learn it and not use it.

That same argument can applied to almost anything in the written
tests, though.

For example:

Why should anyone have to learn about VHF/UHF if they only intend to
use HF?

Why should anyone have to learn about solid-state if they only intend
to use tubes?

Why should anyone have to learn about FM, SSTV, RTTY, etc., if they
only intend to use CW, AM or SSB?

Why should anyone have to learn about theory if they only intend to
use manufactured gear?

Why should anyone have to learn about RF exposure safety if they only
intend to use low power?

Etc.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all. FCC tried having a radio
service with no test - it didn't work out too well.

73 de Jim, N2EY