From: Dee Flint on Wed, Sep 27 2006 4:32 pm

wrote in message

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF
filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

The old R-390 was designed to work with 12 KHz SSB. Cram
as much as you can...:-)

Even so, at 300 Hz bandwidth per OOK CW there would be
room only for 40 of them in 12 KHz bandwidth. :-)


So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

Actually, you would lose such an argument. There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received
transmission to work:

Dee, your judgement is based solely on available "morse
decoder" equipment. Hardly state-of-the-art and not
optimized for anything but strong signals with little
distortion. Relatively cheap equipments on the market.

One reason for not bothering with true state-of-the-art
computer-aided decoding is that there isn't any ROI, no
"return on investment" of trying to make such a thing.

I have seen/heard one "intellectual exercise" by a
programmer that DOES work well under distortion, weak
signals, noise, etc. [there was some discussion about
that in here a few years ago] That wasn't done for
money-making purposes, just to see if it could be done
with modern PC platforms. With a bit more work it could
do quite well in terrible signal environments.

That there's so little opening in the market is under-
standable when you consider that NO other radio service
but amateur bothers with OOK CW for communications.
Well, not quite. The millions of keyless automotive
key fobs now in use in the USA use OOK CW. But, that
data rate is well above human comprehension. Some of
the garage door openers and other remote 'security'
transmitters also use OOK CW in a similar fashion.

Now I grant you that those key fob transmitters can't
"work DX on HF with CW" but then the ham rigs can't
unlock automobiles either. :-)


I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

You mean you actually USE one of those cheap morse
decoders? [ tsk, tsk... ] :-)


I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something
out?

Only his last sentence is a bit vague. However, "simple"
is what comprises the now-available-on-the-market decoders,
all relativly cheap compared to what the COULD be.


As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

While change is neither good or bad, sometimes the results of change can be
undesireable.

"Undesireable" for whom? A minority of amateur radio hobbyists
of today or the future of amateur radio?

Are you thinking that "the needs of the few outweigh the needs
of the many?" That's not egalitarian just quite selfish.

If the FCC eliminates the manual telegraphy test from US amateur
radio license testing, it will NOT take away YOUR privileges of
amateur radio operation. At worst it may cause you some
emotional upset. [the FCC is not concerned with the emotional
mental health of citizens, just regulation of US civil radio]

Is there something "stopping" any new amateur licensee from
taking up manual morse code skills now? I don't think so.
There doesn't seem to be anything in last year's NPRM about
"prohibition against radiotelegraphy." That NPRM only involves
the manual telegraphy test for GETTING INTO amateur radio.
Every single allocated mode in US amateur radio is OPTIONAL
for any licensee to use within the defined scope of their
license class. The only two bands where the FCC allocates
ONLY "CW" is in 6 and 2 meter bands; no-code-test Technicians
can use radiotelegraphy there. In fact, the FCC allocates
manual radiotelegraphy on nearly EVERY amateur band, the full
band not just some slices. If manual radiotelegraphy is so
good-glorious-glamorous, why aren't more radio amateurs
embracing it now? Just WHY do you feel compelled to argue
for the retention of that manual telegraphy test and the
retrograde "glamour" of it to hold back amateur radio?