On Mar 23, 9:53�pm, Klystron wrote:
�Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
� �Wouldn't it make more sense to include
WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?

WWV and WWVB transmitters are at the same site in Fort Collins, CO. I
was there.

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?

Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.

Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
receiver.

The WWV system still has its uses. I suspect its cost is trivial
compared to other systems, too.

Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data,"
in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?


� �A single quantity, like time or location

What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"

� �Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND loca
tion or
course
AND speed.

The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.

There is probably no purpose for which Morse
can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other,
better suited languages
available.

Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.

When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.

Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.

There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers."

Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.

Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that
existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.

How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.

That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort
of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in
amateur radio.

The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.

But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by.
It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation.

When did it exist, and when did it end?

I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.

When and how did that happen, exactly? I see a lot of claims but
no specifics or history.

�The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.

What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.

My 1962 ARRL License Manual has the FCC rules for the Amateur
Radio Service, and at that time - 46 years ago - there were no
Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments on the HF bands, or
any VHF/UHF band above 2 meters. And the rules weren't new then.

OTOH, even today, data modes are prohibited from using the
voice subbands in the USA.

Do you consider a rules change that happened more than 46 years
ago to be "recently"?

I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions).

"Now" includes at least the past 46 years.

There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios.

Which costs practically nothing.

It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.

There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.

I don't think they will last long.

I think they will.

While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse
requirement for an
HF license.

Yes - because of the slowness of the FCC to change Part 97
after the treaty changed in 2003.

Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations.

Which countries? Please be specific.

How do you explain that?

I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.

By limiting 4th class JA hams to only worldwide amateurs-only bands,
interference to other services was prevented. By limiting 4th class
amateurs to very low power, and since Japan is an island nation,
interference to amateurs of other countries was prevented.

Nobody challenged Japan on it, either.

But Japan still requires a Morse Code test for at least some of its
higher-class amateur licenses. The USA does not.

To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.

But why? In 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm
Morse Code tests, but not 5 wpm. FCC said they would have waivered all
the tests except for the treaty. Same for the reduction of all license
classes to 5 wpm in 2000. Opposition to these changes did not stop
FCC.

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?

73 de Jim, N2EY