On Mar 24, 5:10�pm, Klystron wrote:
wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?
Such a system requires connectivity to the internet.
WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.

A computer running ntpd can get
metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use
radio
only, Internet only or both.

That is more complex and costly than a $50 wris****ch or wall clock,
however. And it takes a lot more attention than simply keeping
batteries in it.

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.

I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is.

Actually, I do.

Humans are
not supposed to be involved.

Why not?

If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.

Why does it matter? Morse Code can be machine-to-machine,
machine-to-human, human-to-machine, or human-to-human.

That's a big plus.

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.

� �Utter hogwash.

It wasn't developed from ARPANET?

It started out as a network of Universities and a few
defense contractors' laboratories.

DoD funded, then. Maybe not directly, but still DoD funded.

It wasn't a bunch of self-funded basement experimenters.

Much of the funding came from the
individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary.

But it was there.

Besides, after the
Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet
(with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the s
mall slice of that pie.

How does that make what I wrote "utter hogwash" in any way?

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.

� �Again, that is preposterous nonsense.

Why? Was there no legislation needed to make the internet
as we know it possible? Was there no one working to make it
easier to use?

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.

� �The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1
994.

14-15 years ago.

So I got online 3 to 4 years after the beginning.

At that
time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities
that
covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics.

No courses in UNIX at all?

You had to learn
it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
architecture.

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.

The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a
violation
and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that
was long
ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.

And how long did that no-commercial-use restriction last? It was long
gone in 1997.

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.

� �The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voi
ce.

But they have included data modes like RTTY for more than 46
years. Every Hz of them.

You claimed:

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

Note the terms "is being wasted" and "until recently". But no such
band segments (except 2.5% of 6 and 2 meters) have existed for at
least 46 years.

Not only that, but modes besides FSK RTTY have been
common on the HF amateur bands since at least the early
1980s.

Until fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data."

Please define "fairly recently". 10 years? 20 years? 46 years?

All of the non-voice parts of the bands have been open to
data modes for decades. That hams didn't use them much
30-40 years ago wasn't because of Morse Code.

There was some RTTY,
but it was never a major issue.

When?

For many decades, the traffic in the HF
ham bands was SSB voice or CW.

Hams began using SSB voice in the early 1930s. It
became more popular in the late 1940s and really
took off in the late 1950s-early 1960s.

But there was also AM voice, narrowband FM voice,
RTTY, SSTV, and even some FAX.

A pie chart would show a very small slice
labeled "other."

Perhaps, 30-40 years ago. Think about why that was.
It wasn't because of Morse Code.

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.

What about code tapes? How much longer will they last?

They've been largely replaced by Morse Code training
software, like G4FON's. No need to buy tapes anymore,
just download some free software and make your own. Or
download files to your MP3 player or iPod.

My guess is
that those keys are sold only to replace other keys.

My observation is that a considerable number are sold
to new hams who want to *use* Morse Code on the air.

Is that wrong? Should hams not learn, use or promote
Morse Code anymore?

I doubt that there
are very many first time key buyers today.

I know a couple. And since the usable life of a key is
measured in decades, the need for replacements is
pretty limited.

And consider this:

There are a considerable number of companies making
CW-only or CW-centric low-power HF amateur transceivers.
They are being sold in the tens of thousands.

For example, a new company called Elecraft appeared
in 1999 selling a CW-only QRP HF transceiver *kit* for
a bit under $600. To date, more then 6000 have been sold,
with minimal advertising. The company later produced
other CW-only transceiver kits, and they have sold well
with minimal advertising.

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
of the same
radio service in different countries.

� �So you admit that different countries interpreted their
treaty
obligations in different ways?

I know that Japan used that logic to get around the ITU-R treaty
requirement.

Do you know of *any* other country (besides Japan)
that had a nocodetest amateur radio license with HF privileges before
2003?

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

�I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research
for you, but
there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
modified over a period of years.

I have researched the subject. The treaty in question is
the ITU-R treaty, to which the USA is a signatory. That's
not just my opinion; it's what the FCC has repeatedly
written in its Report and Orders.

Before July 2003, in part S25.5, the ITU-R treaty required
that all amateur licenses which grant privileges below 30 MHz
had to have Morse Code tests.

That requirement was made optional at WRC 2003. Signatory
countries could retain Morse Code testing or eliminate it, as they
chose.

Some have chosen to reduce or eliminate it. Others have not.

No-code HF licenses came about over
time in a number of countries.

How many countries besides Japan had them before July 2003?

How many have them now?

The US was either one of the last to drop
code or was dead last to do so.

Japan still requires Morse Code for First Class licenses. Canadians
have the option of passing a Morse Code test or getting a higher
score on the written exam. Most of the countries in the former
Soviet Union still require Morse Code testing.

In any event, here in the USA:

- there has been a nocodetest amateur radio license for more than 17
years

- all classes of amateur license have been available for just a 5 wpm
test for 18 years with medical waiver, and for almost 8 years without
such a waiver.

- Morse Code testing has been completely gone for more than a year.

Yet US amateurs continue to use the mode extensively. Some use it
exclusively.

73 de Jim, N2EY