Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:

Barry OGrady wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote:


Or just lazy people out?

Sc

It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
learning it, either.

More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
requirement was removed years ago?


No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
Nobody wants to be like you.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:


More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
requirement was removed years ago?


No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of
people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I
have helped to obtain a license

Nobody wants to be like you.

afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result
desiable

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Opus- wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly:


More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code
requirement was removed years ago?


No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away.
not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of
people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I
have helped to obtain a license

Nobody wants to be like you.

afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result
desiable

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote:


Call me old fashioned, but I think the code makes amateur radio look
rather quaint and charming myself. It's a legacy mode, and just because it's a relic

which means you agree with my point but lack the guts to say so

it it makes us look like relics

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, wrote:

yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards

This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get
personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.

NT

If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
your license callsign?

How DOES one have a "reasoned debate" with an anony-mousie
such as "Nada Tapu"?

I've not seen that such is possible in here except for two and
both of them are self-admitted Canadians.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 22:36:54 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

a nice peice of writing stored I may lift a peice or for something I
am working on

Thank you. Feel free to use any part. I would be nice to
get credit for it, a common courtesy.


but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF
would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes
pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams
themslves

"Magic" is a subjective term. The "magic" of HF worldwide comms
dissolved into reality for me in 1953 on seeing such wholesale
"magic" working 24/7 in tying US Army (and other military) into
the large network going back to the states.

"Different strokes for different folks."

ARRL is still fixated on HF and the "magic" of morse. Since they
influence (if not brainwash) as many US hams as they can with
their huge publishing effort, we aren't supposed to negatively
critique them. That's "not nice" to those who've had their brains
washed in that way.

I've seen "real" magic at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, CA. That's
mainly a professional association of magicians/illusionists. One
can't gain entrance without being admitted by a member. I've had
the marvelous opportunity to go in three times there...and be
totally fascinated by the illusions. Whenever I see some ham
bring up "magic" I think of the Magic Castle. A lot of hams ascribe
"magic" to HF comms but that is their own private illusion (or
delusion, as the case may be). Shrug. To each his own but I
don't like others trying to cram Their delusions into everyone.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:

Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, wrote:

yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards

This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get
personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.

NT

If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
your license callsign?

Probably because it's not safe to go waving around more information than you
have to.

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oreg...sp?item=194639
Dispute On CB Airwaves Leads To Fatal Shooting

Yes, the non-CB amateur bands tend to be a little more mature than the
citizens band (or at least as far as the
Washington/Clark/Multnomah/Clackamas County area is concerned).
Unfortunately, Usenet and the Internet are not. If you don't believe me,
go watch Dateline when they sting Internet weirdos sometime to see the
worst of them.

--
Baloo
email & xmpp:


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

wrote:
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.

My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

It IS the Code.

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

Telegraph.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.

ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.

Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.

That is true in essence for all those who "work DX on HF
with CW." :-)

Some will point to modern techniques in radio (DDS, PLL
frequency control, solid-state PAs that need no tuning
controls, etc.) as being advancements. Trouble is, those
advancements came from the designers-manufacturers,
advancements to capture market share of ham consumer
electronics. Using only on-off keying with a state-of-the-
art transceiver seems a waste of available resources in
that equipment.

My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.

One in three Americans has a cell phone now
according to the US Census Bureau. Each cell
phone is basically a little two-way radio.

No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)

I just completed an exchange of files (including hi-
resolution photographs) this morning with another
in Europe. Took only a few minutes. The Internet
stretches over most of the globe, is unaffected by any
ionospheric variation. Those files couldn't be
exchanged via "CW" on HF. [maybe the "phase
shift" impairs such information transfer...:-) ]

No "CW" test is needed to use the Internet. :-)

But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio
amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands
below 30 MHz. None of the other radio services
require that. shrug

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."

Heh. But, in here, coders are the only ones with "facts." Anything
a no-coder says is "wrong," "in error" and other endearments. :-)

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

It IS the Code.

True enough. But...the coders HAVE their rank-status-
privileges and seem to enjoy looking down on no-coders.
All must do as they did or be called "wrong" or "in error."

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

Telegraph.

Early radio was just a telegraph system without poles and
wires between stations. Mythical tales have turned early radio
into something greater than rocket science.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.

ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

Ah, yes, the Great 500 KHz "Experiment." AS IF the 500 KHz
region hasn't ALREADY had 80 years plus of determining
whether or not it works for communications! :-)

Good old League, leading all "Back to the Future." :-)

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.

Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

It's about the same as those who love to Re-Enact the
American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War.
Play-acting at "pioneering" over 8 decades after that
frequency region was picked for the first maritime distress
and safety reserved frequency.

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.

"Ore" from a mine. The pro-coders say "I've got mine, nya-nya."

It's getting to be "Back to the Future, Part Infinity" if things
like the Great 500 KHz Experiment is a sign of things to
come from the "representative of all amateurs" in Newington.

Their other "Experiment" is a "contest" to see who can best
come up with a whole ham station for LESS than $50 in new
part costs. Whoever "wins" that gets a really hefty prize of
$100 cash and Publication in QST! Oh, and it is 40 meters
only, but "allows" SSB voice to be included. :-)

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio
amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands
below 30 MHz.

Imagine that!

inde it is hard to image and frankly draws laughter in many quarters

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)

No, Len, it isn't. No license exam at all is required. You are
qualified to use a cell phone. If you want to work some DX, you are
free to see how far from a tower you can be and still make one work.
cut the **** dave you just can accept the free speech belongs to him
and me

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)

No, Len, it isn't. No license exam at all is required. You are
qualified to use a cell phone. If you want to work some DX, you are
free to see how far from a tower you can be and still make one work.

cut the **** dave you just can accept the free speech belongs to him
and me

Heil MUST interject and snarl some sarcasm into any no-code-
test advocates' posting to another. He can't understand any
radio system that isn't done via the amateur radio way, "his"
way.

As a matter of fact, last year on a return auto trip from the
midwest, my wife used our cell phone all along the highways
from Iowa into Nevada, talking to her sister in Washington
state, inquiring of and making reservations at new motels
along the way, catching up on e-mail by getting them through
the cell phone as audio...all from inside the car. No problems,
no drop-outs.

Any cellular telephone in the USA has the capability of direct-
dialing any other telephone, including foreign countries which
have direct dialing to their subscribers' numbers. That's a
plain and simple fact. Amateur radio can't do that anywhere
in the world 24/7; cell phones can. That's another plain and
simple fact. Each cell phone is a two-way radio, an "HT,"
but full-duplex instead of the ham half-duplex HT.

But, Heil MUST sound off like he is "superior" in radio so he
does postings, many postings, editing quotes to fit his
attack agenda du jour. That's okay, though, he is an amateur
extra morseman and they seem to be exempt in behavior;
us no-code-test advocates are NOT exempt, must play the
role of boys from some absurd version of "Oliver Twist."
[Heil tries to be a little dickens...]

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

But, Heil MUST sound off like he is "superior" in radio so he
does postings, many postings, editing quotes to fit his
attack agenda du jour. That's okay, though, he is an amateur
extra morseman and they seem to be exempt in behavior;
us no-code-test advocates are NOT exempt, must play the
role of boys from some absurd version of "Oliver Twist."
[Heil tries to be a little dickens...]
you must be carefull about mentioning boys after all that will surely
get YOU tarred as a pedophile (you beiing the one of the few I have not
observed Robeson target with that brush or have I just missed it)

but heil is making a faint effort to control the agenda doesn't see
that if the Procder refuse to conservse we can do that Ourselves but
then none of them seem to be very good at thinking outside the box

well in 2 hours we have Kol Nedre (yom Kippur evening services) and the
judgements made by God on Rosh hashana will be sealed for the year)
hopefully this mean the FCC will issue the R&O on monday so those going
to die of heart faulure over can get on with it

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: "an old friend" on Sun, Oct 1 2006 1:25 pm


wrote:
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

But, Heil MUST sound off like he is "superior" in radio so he
does postings, many postings, editing quotes to fit his
attack agenda du jour. That's okay, though, he is an amateur
extra morseman and they seem to be exempt in behavior;
us no-code-test advocates are NOT exempt, must play the
role of boys from some absurd version of "Oliver Twist."
[Heil tries to be a little dickens...]

you must be carefull about mentioning boys after all that will surely
get YOU tarred as a pedophile (you beiing the one of the few I have not
observed Robeson target with that brush or have I just missed it)

"Boys?" I was one once...a long time ago. :-)

The USMC Imposter DID target me for a while, a long while
back when you were off this newsgripe. If he added
homosexuality to the long, long list of insults, it might
have been overlooked; there were so many insults from him.

As Cecil Moore used to say, "I must be a lesbian since I
have this attraction to women." :-)

That attraction, or rather "interest" has been in me
since my teens began. Doesn't mean I want to BE one.

but heil is making a faint effort to control the agenda doesn't see
that if the Procder refuse to conservse we can do that Ourselves but
then none of them seem to be very good at thinking outside the box

I don't see Heil making ANY effort to control himself in
here. His agenda is tightly focussed on snarling at
everything I write. :-) He snarls and sneers so much
that I just think of him as having the sense of humor
of plankton.


well in 2 hours we have Kol Nedre (yom Kippur evening services) and the
judgements made by God on Rosh hashana will be sealed for the year)
hopefully this mean the FCC will issue the R&O on monday so those going
to die of heart faulure over can get on with it

Well, anything that appears in the big Reading Room at the
FCC on Monday will have already been decided. The GPO will
be or already has set up the Federal Register pages on
Friday...if the R&O is ever published there.

The FCC doesn't regard amateur radio as a big matter and
(in the last few years) hasn't always put amateur rules
decisions IN the FR. Indeed, they don't bother much with
keeping the Amateur sub-page of the Wireless Bureau up to
date...certainly not on all the Petitions that were in
Comment the year before.

Heh heh, maybe the FCC is running the R&O over to the ARRL
for "approval" first? :-)

Shalom,

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Barry OGrady wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote:


Or just lazy people out?

Sc

It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
learning it, either.

More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement
was removed years ago?

Yes. In the USA at least.

Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991,
the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA
has been continuous. Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL
licensees. The Technician class license numbers are twice that
of General class, the next-largest license class.

Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of
2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003. At
that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all
classes.

A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old-
timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being
replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio)
licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has
persisted for three years.

The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the
major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees.
Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY
regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter
olde-tyme amateur radio. Ally that with the huge growth of
the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet
that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications
over that world - and the traditional standards and practices
of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to
newcomers they once had.

Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a
spurt in new licensees. While such elimination is not a
guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act
to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times.
Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in
regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority
of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
Barry OGrady wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

Or just lazy people out?

It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
learning it, either.

More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement
was removed years ago?

Yes. In the USA at least.

The number of US hams peaked a few years ago, and is now below what it
was in 2000.

Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991,
the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA
has been continuous.

It was also continuous before the Technician lost its code test.

Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL
licensees.

Actually, as of October 1, 2006, the number of Technicians was 285,709
out of 656,481 US hams. Those are the number of individuals holding
current, unexpired, FCC-issued amateur licenses. Technicians account
for 43.5% of US hams, not 49%.

The Technician class license numbers are twice that
of General class, the next-largest license class.

131, 945 General Class licenses as of the same date as above.

It should be noted, however, that since April 15, 2000, the FCC has
been renewing all Technician Plus licenses as Technicians. Thus, the
Technician class is composed of some hams who have not passed a Morse
Code test, and some who have.

The Technician Plus class numbers are steadily dropping, because that
license is not issued anymore. If the FCC does not change the rules,
there will be no more Technician Plus licenses at all in about 3-1/2
years, because they will all have either expired, upgraded, or been
renewed as Technicians.

Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of
2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003.

??

The current rules went into effect on April 15, 2000.

The peak of 2003 is well documented. Since then the number of US
amateurs has declined to below what it was in 2000.

At
that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all
classes.

That is true.

However, back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20
wpm Morse Code tests. These waivers meant that anyone who could pass 5
wpm could bypass the higher-speed Morse Code tests by obtaining a
doctor's note.

A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old-
timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being
replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio)
licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has
persisted for three years.

It is true that there are more expirations than newcomers.

However, it cannot be stated with certainty whether the decline is due
to the attrition of "older licensees", or the loss of newer hams who
simply let their licenses expire.

For example, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, a significant
number of new amateurs appeared who used amateur radio for
personal/family communications. They were very interested in VHF/UHF
repeaters, autopatch, and related activities. Most got Technician
licenses - with or without Morse Code - because that license gave
access to 2 meter and 440 MHz repeaters.

But with the appearance of inexpensive and ubiquitous cell phones, that
source of new amateurs all but disappeared.

The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the
major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees.

Perhaps.

But consider this:

The growth in the number of US hams from February 1991 to April 2000
was *less* than the growth from December 1981 to February 1991. (Same
amount of time, before and after the Tech lost its code test.) This is
true in both absolute numbers and percentage.

Since the restructuring of April 2000, which reduced both code and
written exams, the number of US hams has actually dropped by over
17,000.

Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY
regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter
olde-tyme amateur radio.

What changes do you suggest, Len, besides the elimination of the code
test?

There may be little incentive for *you* to enter amateur radio, but for
thousands of others, the incentive is there.

It should be noted that in the Readex survey of 1996, the most staunch
pro-code-test age group was the *youngest* amateurs.

Ally that with the huge growth of
the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet
that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications
over that world - and the traditional standards and practices
of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to
newcomers they once had.

Amateur radio is not the internet, and the internet is not amateur
radio. Amateur radio can only survive by offering a unique
communications experience - that is, by doing things that cannot be
done online.

It should be remembered that the growth of cell phones and low-cost
long distance phone service is another factor affecting growth. We will
not see many people getting amateur radio licenses for "honeydew"
purposes - with or without a code test.

Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a
spurt in new licensees.

Perhaps - in the short term.

While such elimination is not a
guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act
to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times.

It should be remembered that the dropping of the Morse Code test for
Technician back in 1991 did not result in long-term growth in numbers.

The reduction of both Morse Code testing and written testing in 2000
did not result in long-term or even medium-term growth. The numbers
grew from 2000 to 2003, then declined to a level below that of 2000.

Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in
regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority
of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group.

What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:


What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?
elinatly the arcance made in rule Band plans would certainly help
Idlealy begining a tranistion to a licesne scheme of prevedles that
makes sense

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

so what? JJim Crowe was very popular at one time

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

it will howver stop of us from such laughing stocks that will help us
poke out to be seen with being laughed at

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:


What changes besides eliminating the Morse Code test are necessary to
'keep up with modern times'?
elinatly the arcance made in rule Band plans would certainly help
Idlealy begining a tranistion to a licesne scheme of prevedles that
makes sense

It should be remembered that, in the comments to the recent FCC NPRM,
the *majority* of those who commented did not want complete elimination
of the Morse Code test for all US licenses. The majority wanted at
least some Morse Code testing to remain.

so what? JJim Crowe was very popular at one time

Eliminating the Morse Code test will not greatly increase the visiblity
of Amateur Radio. It will not reduce the cost of equipment. It will not
make it any less difficult to set up an effective HF antenna, nor will
it solve RFI or CC&R problems.

it will howver stop of us from such laughing stocks that will help us
poke out to be seen with being laughed at


WTF did he just say?

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie? My God man/heshe/shemale! Can you not see what a
moron you are? Look at your blog. Get someone with an IQ above the freezing
point of water to help you fix the spelling errors.
accouts of Kosher ham
the sometime idle rambing a Ham that happens to be jewish besxaul and a Ham
radio operator

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:39:33 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie?
what **** Tom


This Markie:


accouts of Kosher ham
the sometime idle rambing a Ham that happens to be jewish besxaul and a Ham
radio operator

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:39:33 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:14:24 GMT, "U-Know-Who"
wrote:

in you have now heard from no one ata ll
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


WTF is this ****, Markie?
what **** Tom


This Markie:


accouts(Accounts) of(a) Kosher ham
the(The) sometime(sometimes) idle rambing(ramblings)(of) a Ham that
happens to be jewish besxaul(bisexual) and a Ham radio operator

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended to
write? Idiot!

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

U-Know-Who wrote:
"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended to
write? Idiot!
obviously you understood completely Tom therefore comuncation was
achieved therefore I butchered nothing at all

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
...

There goofball. Now can you see how badly you butchered what you intended
to
write? Idiot!
obviously you understood completely Tom therefore comuncation was
achieved therefore I butchered nothing at all


Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

U-Know-Who wrote:
"

Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.
you lack the power to require anything of me

you also lack the intelegence to understand that fact and you lack any
manners I ivtie you into to my world andwhat do I get instaed of thanks
you I get your puting my loosey spelling on the same plan as Robesons
death threats and both of accusing me of child moletsing

one day maybe you will grow up and get a life but I doubt as you nick
tells you are nameless loser: your wting shows you to be frustrated
school marm type

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

U-Know-Who wrote:
"

Next lesson is punctuation, Goofball. It is required.
you lack the power to require anything of me

you also lack the intelegence to understand that fact and you lack any
manners I ivtie you into to my world andwhat do I get instaed of thanks
you I get your puting my loosey spelling on the same plan as Robesons
death threats and both of accusing me of child moletsing

one day maybe you will grow up and get a life but I doubt as you nick
tells you are nameless loser: your wting shows you to be frustrated
school marm type


Oh my! You (ivtie) me into your world? No thanks. I'll pass on that one,
good buddy. (loosey) spelling? You are hilarious in your futile crappie
flopping around all subjects. Well, all except your sexual deviations and
disgraceful use of beer. You seem to love talking about both.

Now, when I "grow up and get a life", does that mean I have to engage in sex
with men and douche my ass with beer as you do? I'll pass.

Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine? Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

What is wrong with live and let live?

Part A, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.

Tsk, that old ploy once again...

Now, now, calm down, Jimmie. You have NEVER been IN
the military yet you have NO reservations about
telling all the military and its veterans what to do,
how they should do it, how "wrong" they were in not
doing it as you said it should be done.

Amateur radio "differs" from other radio services
only in man-made regulations and the fantasies of
its licensees. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the basic
physical laws governing radio or radio waves versus
all other radio services.

Electrons, EM fields and waves follow THEIR rules, not
the imaginations of the ARRL and its members...or the
legislations of human law-makers.

If Miccolis' logic is "correct" in who is able to
talk about, govern, regulate, etc. amateur radio,
then the very first amateur licensee and the very
first radio regulating agency have been ILLEGAL from
the start. Id est, the unlicensed would NOT have
been IN amateur radio, therefore they could not do
anything. You see the fallacy of your argument?
[you wouldn't admit it if it came up and bit your
butt]

Your "IN" argument in reference to amateur radio is
therefore not only incorrect, it is nonsense.

You wish to quibble word definitions in order to
score message points and thereby show your alleged
superiority? Id est, one must be "IN" amateur radio
in order to "do" something about it. Nonsense.

In regulations that is also fallacious. None at the
FCC need be licensed "IN" the amateur radio service
in order to REGULATE it or any US civil radio service.
NONE. Not the Commissioners, not any of the staff.
Tsk, tsk, you do not negatively criticize the FCC yet
they are NOT "IN" US amateur radio. Why is that?

Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens
may freely express their desires to the government of
the United States. [the formal wording is "petition
the government for the redress of their grievances"]
That includes ALL laws, legislation thereof, regulations
and rules imposed by the government.

Yet YOU wish to exclude the nearly 299 million citizens
who are NOT amateur radio licensees (your definition of
being "IN" amateur radio is being granted that license)
from doing anything at all except obeyance of YOUR
desires and ONLY those of other amateur licensees.
That is dictatorial, totalitarianism, and general
bull**** 'territory' thinking that is akin to some
neighborhood street gang.

You do not "own" amateur radio nor do you have ANY
qualifications to "rule" on it. You've NEVER been IN
any government regulating agency, indeed never been
IN government, yet you wish to exclude millions just
on YOUR "definition" of who can say what and to whom.

Part B, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate.

Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance
radiotelephony by 1906.

"PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a
single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!?

You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio
control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting, yet
you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting
a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
for broadcasting.

For a double-degreed education in things electrical you
just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and
definite misunderstanding of the real definition of
"practical."

AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Superfluous minutae.

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting. Your amateur radio
license does NOT permit broadcasting. I have been IN
broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime).

NO, repeat NO amplitude-modulation broadcaster uses
your so-called "practical" means of modulating a CW
carrier. NONE. Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all
practical, others would have used that technique. NONE
did.


Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century.

PR bull**** you fantasize. You were NOT among the
"pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to
prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing
that. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

Here's a plain and simple fact: Landline telegraphy
was already changing from manual to teleprinter by
the year 1900. That changeover continued until the
middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph
circuits were either shut down or replaced by
electromechanical teleprinters.


The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

Superfluous minutae. Manual telegraphy consisted of
closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions
of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of
them modeled on either "International" or "Continental"
AMERICAN morse code or any English-language
representation.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

Part C, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

Part D, Is the code requirement really keeping good people out?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.

What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.
Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'
Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well. Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)." Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.
Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.


Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

You know NOTHING of military radio. You never served, never
worked with the military. I did both as a soldier and as a
civilian.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology. I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services, never
had one. I did.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.
I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used. I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.
CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that. I've been doing that since 1959.

You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications
Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a
communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a
cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or
radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three
Americans has one. Do you have one. I do.


Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs

Don't you forget it.


And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs. LEGAL
operation. In most cases of such work NO license was required
by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only
CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use]

When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER
operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than
causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you
transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have
transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that
since 1953...53 years ago.

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz. What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply"
of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES"
anything of the government or contracted work by the
government. In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your
INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that
they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer." I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

YOU don't think your remark was an "insult." You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since. Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!


It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

YOU are NOT young, Jimmie. Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship. Manual radiotelegraphy hasn't been
"pioneered" by you.


The transistor was invented in 1948 - 58 years ago.

1947. The PATENT wasn't granted immediately. :-)

Amateurs were using
them in receivers and transmitters by the late 1950s.

Early. Like 1952. See QST or CQ (forget which) which
I saw at Fort Monmouth in that year. Transistors made
by Philco (?). Whatever it was, the transistors have
long been obsolete, out of production, replaced by
newer, better, cheaper types.

Jimmie, quit contradicting those who were IN the radio-
electronics industry or work who worked through all
that period. As a double-degreed whizzy something you
should KNOW that REAL PRACTICAL transistors for HF use
didn't come into being until much later than the late
1940s.

There's a whole heaping gob of documents of history of
the solid-state era, how it began, all the trouble
everyone had to make them work, to make them reliable,
to make them cheap. Much of that is now on the web.
Go do some study of something OTHER than ARRL
"radio history" for your own edification. That is,
if you can really tear yourself away from Big Brother.

To me, the history of the industry is interesting. To
you it is little more than some obscure footnote you
hunt for in order to use in messages where you claim
your respondent is "wrong" or "in error." :-)

Come back when you've actually DESIGNED some solid-state
ham radio, not just assembled a kit designed by someone
else. Use those mighty collitch degrees, all that radio-
electronics "experience" in the "industry" to show us
what you can really do. :-)

Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?



Whewww. That was a gassy one.

SC

Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly:

Whewww. That was a gassy one.

We don't need to hear about your sex life.

Ping [email protected]
 

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.