On Sep 21, 6:30�pm, AJ Lake wrote:
wrote:
AJ Lake wrote:
I do have a [treaty] source. [3 listed]

But if the treaty had not required a code test for the 220 MHz Tech in
the license change of 1951, do you think the hams of the day (both
inside and outside the FCC) would have allowed a codeless ham to
exist?

Maybe. Nobody really knows; the treaty in place at the time prevented
it.

It would have been scary to even express those thoughts aloud
in those days, considering what you hear now, 50+ years later...

Not at all. As early as 1936, there were ideas put forth for a
nocodetest amateur license in the pages of QST. (The 1936 idea was for
a basic 5 and 2-1/2 meter license that would allow a low-power local
communications without a code test).

But whenever the discussion came up, the overwhelming majority opposed
the idea.

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.
When were these "dark days"?

Incentive Licensing. I have always voted with my wallet.

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Oddly enough, btw, the League was not the only nor the first to
propose a return to a more-progressive license structure in 1963.
There were at least ten proposals, some submitted before ARRL's.

Ironically, the original 1963 ARRL proposal simply called for a return
to the pre-1953 rules where you needed an Advanced or Extra to use
'phone on most of the HF ham bands.

btw, one of the driving forces behind the changes were letters
received by FCC from *nonhams* complaining about the relative techical
ignorance of many hams of the day. Those letters essentially said that
while it used to be that a ham could be counted on to be reasonably
qualified in technical and practical knowledge of radio, the early
1960s version could not. Don't know how true that was but it sure got
FCC's attention.

The license is for operating, not building.

The Technician was meant for those who were more interested in VHF/UHF
experimentation than HF operating.

But only the kind of experimentation that requires operating. Anybody
can build practically anything radio they want in their basement; the
license is only needed to put it on the air.

The license is for operating, not building.

IMHO the social-engineering experiment of the Tech license just didn't
work. The original Technician (220 and up only) got very few takers
until 6 and 2 meters were added. This was due in large part to the
fact that, at the time, there was no manufactured ham gear for 220 and
up. And througout its history, most Techs have not been experimenters
in the way that FCC envisioned.

What's worse is that the Tech license, even before it lost its code
test, created a divide in amateur radio between those who had HF and
those who didn't.

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?

I've heard that argument, but that's not why they quit the code test.

Yes, it is. It's what's behind every argument given to remove it.
People who were going to use the mode don't care about a basic test of
the mode at all, they just pass it and move on.

The reasons for a code test that once applied are no longer valid.

*Some* of the reasons are no longer valid.

No
more military CW. No more ship to shore CW. No more WW2 ops needed.

Actually, Morse Code was in regular US military use long after WW2. At
least into the late 1960s for the US Navy and into the late 1990s for
the US Coast Guard. And there is still some use of Morse Code for
maritime use. But very, very little.

More important, those reasons aren't the only ones, nor even the major
ones, to have a code test. Even in the old days, most hams would never
be military or commercial radio operators, so why require a code test
for the few who would be?

The main reason to have a test for something to get a ham radio
license is because *hams* do the thing, not because other radio
services do the thing, or do not.

Ect ect ect. CW is now really obsolete for anything but hobby use.

Did you see the article about the ham who was injured while hiking in
the Pacific Northwest, and called for help using CW? Just happened a
few days ago. Broken leg in a situation like that is a lot more than
"nothing but hobby use".

Making involuntary human modems has little value to the government any
more.

Being a skilled radio operator isn't being "an involuntary human
modem".

What's really changed is that the idea of needing "radio operators" at
all. Look at what has happened to commercial licensing, for example.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all.

The ham test should be about *modern* technology.

Why? With most ham gear today, there is no real need to understand how
the rig works in order to use it. Most have no real tune-up
adjustments at all.

And who gets to decide what is "modern" anyway? Radio today is mostly
VHF/UHF, not HF. It's mostly channelized, too, and highly automated.
Most radios today don't even have a tuning knob!

Testing about past
obsolete technology and practices such as tubes, mechanical RTTY, and
code ect just doesn't make sense.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Very few hams today use mechanical RTTY machines, so that technology
isn't on the test. But the basic technology - FSK 5-level Baudot-coded
RTTY - is still in wide use by hams, and is on the test.

Most hams nowadays only use tubes in high power RF amplifiers. A
smaller number use tubes for other applications, including entire tube-
based stations, but their number is relatively small. So there are
only a few tube questions (if any) on the test.

But Morse Code is in wide use by hams on the ham bands. It's not
"obsolete" at all. On the HF bands it is second only to SSB voice and
is far ahead of many other modes in popularity.

Shouldn't a license to use an amateur station include tests on what
amateurs actually do?

What really killed the code test, IMHO, is that a few people
complained loud enough and long enough about it. And if you read their
complaints, you see that what they're really saying is that they don't
want to learn something they do not intend to use. Particularly
something that requires some effort to learn, which cannot be learned
by reading a book or watching a video.

I think what *really* burned some folks' bacon was that, since most
people don't come to ham radio with Morse Code knowledge, it put all
new hams on the same level in one way. The Ph.D and the big bucks
businessman found themselves at the same table as the grade-schooler
when it came to learning code. Worse, the grade-schooler might very
well out-do them! Some folks do not like that kind of equality.

I still remember the reactions of some (not many) older, more-
experienced hams when they found out I was a teenage Extra. It
*really* bothered them!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Voting with my wallet always makes me feel better. And just to make me
feel even better, I read QST for years at the bookstore for free....

The Technician was meant for those who were more interested in VHF/UHF
experimentation than HF operating.

The license is for operating, not building.

I kind of set you up on that one. What you thought was my statement
was really your own statement. "The Technician was meant for those
who were more interested in VHF/UHF experimentation than HF
operating." is a direct quote from "The Past 50 Years of Amateur Radio
Licensing part 1" which *you* authored. So in those many paragraphs
you posted in reply, you were arguing with yourself... ;-)

Being a skilled radio operator isn't being "an involuntary human modem".

Being a skilled radio operator in modern times does not require the
use of an ancient obsolete manual code.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Obsolete is a subjective term. When an object finally becomes obsolete
most people can recognize it, and they upgrade to more modern
products. For example most people would agree that the 20+ tube 1950s
vintage TV set I watched as a kid is now quite obsolete. Likewise a
many tubed 1950s vintage shortwave receiver. Both would still work.
Both could still be used. But both are quite obsolete.

I still remember the reactions of some (not many) older, more-
experienced hams when they found out I was a teenage Extra. It
*really* bothered them!

You misread them. They just didn't like a braggart...

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:

So for something done 40+ years ago, by folks who are mostly now dead,
you still hold a grudge against the League. Interesting.

Voting with my wallet always makes me feel better. And just to make me
feel even better, I read QST for years at the bookstore for free....


Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

AJ Lake wrote:

Being a skilled radio operator in modern times does not require the
use of an ancient obsolete manual code.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Obsolete is a subjective term.

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete! I can make QSOs with just a few Watts that
you could only /dream/ of achieving with /Kilowatts/ - and it can only be
done with CW!

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message
...
AJ Lake wrote:

Being a skilled radio operator in modern times does not require the
use of an ancient obsolete manual code.

Who decides what is "obsolete"?

Obsolete is a subjective term.

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete! I can make QSOs with just a few Watts that
you could only /dream/ of achieving with /Kilowatts/ - and it can only be
done with CW!

Bob

I find it calming and even kind of cool that I can walk around the house and
follow a QSO in CW without having to carry a laptop and battery pack on my
back to translate. I can even copy it easier than some people's voices with
5 times the power. But I can see how some might want everyone to think it's
obsolete or even have us all executed for our insolence against the
revolution!

What you have to realize, is that there are those "out there" who would
consider HAM RADIO to be OBSOLETE because we don't pay for airtime.

The code test is no more! Viva La Revolucione! So now the war should be
over!

So now life should go on. People should be allowed to use voice, or learn
morse code, talk like computers, go have a sex change, jump off the Golden
Gate bridge, run for president, or whatever they feel like as long as the
taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill.

"Dee Flint" wrote:

Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

The Barnes and Noble in my town actually provides chairs for you to
sit and read magazines and books. Many of the chairs are overstuffed.
I would say they have a different philosophy than your bookstores.

And I think B&N know what they are doing since I seldom leave there
without buying at least $30 worth. More if the XYL is along.

My QST boycott is purely personal satisfaction, not financial.

My local ham store once complained that I was looking too long at the
magazine rack. (It might have been a QST.) Over the years I had bought
several $1000 in ham rigs. Being shortsighted has cost them thousands
more in business since I still go there to look at the rigs, but now
do my buying online .

Again I vote with my wallet, because it makes *me* feel better. I
don't have any delusions that it really bothers the businesses.

"AJ Lake" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote:

Well you should have been kicked out of the bookstore. Most stores that
I'm
familiar with will let you thumb through material but will NOT let you
stand
there (or sit there) and read something.

The Barnes and Noble in my town actually provides chairs for you to
sit and read magazines and books. Many of the chairs are overstuffed.
I would say they have a different philosophy than your bookstores.


Even Barnes & Noble will object if you read an entire magazine or entire
book. They are not a library but a business. The chairs and atmosphere are
so you can SAMPLE the reading material not spend the day reading.

"Dee Flint" wrote:

They [B&N] are not a library but a business.

B&N is a very successful business. When they think the 'library'
chairs are losing them money, the chairs will be removed.

The chairs and atmosphere are so you can SAMPLE the reading
material not spend the day reading.

I *sampled* QST and *bought* another magazine or book. The bottom line
$$ for B&N was the same or more. Your tears are for the wrong entity.
B&N made money because I was drawn to their 'free sample' QST
magazine. QST is the one who lost money, but then that's what voting
with your wallet is all about...

"JB" wrote:

I find it calming and even kind of cool that I can walk around the house and
follow a QSO in CW

I use wireless headphones when working CW as I find the corded
headphones very confining. Also I can hit the sandbox or icebox while
the other guy is transmitting.

Wired headphones are (almost) obsolete...

Bob wrote:

CW /certainly/ isn't obsolete!

CW is quite obsolete in the commercial radio world. However I agree CW
still can be fun to use in the ham radio hobby.

I can make QSOs with just a few Watts...

I would agree that CW works better than most other modes under adverse
conditions. That's one of the reasons I've been using it for so many
years. My HOA required stealth antenna is a very poor radiator, and
even though I'm running 50 watts, my ERP is probably just a couple of
watts...