That is true, but it is only an alarm of sorts. It does not allow for
intermittent keying last I knew. A downed cop or firefighter could key a
location such as "bedroom" or " bathroom" or whatever.

There is AVL as well, but that usually is for the mobile radios.
Kinda-sorta-maybe like APRS.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Fortunately, there are other ways to accomplish the same task, that
being to alert other firefihters to the plight of the trapped
personnel. The fire department in Buffalo, NY equips members of its
interior teams with portable radios that have a "man down" button on
them. When said button is pressed (which isn't hard to do, it happens
very often by accident) it activates an alarm on the MDTs in the rigs.
The drill then is that all other comms stop at once and a headcount is
performed. It doesn't even have to be the MDT on the rig he or she is
assigned to - any MDT in range will initiate the alarm. Other
departments probably use that technology as well, I merely am aware of
this one since I live relatively near Buffalo.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

That's BS and everyone reading here knows it.

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Lemme try again: At one point in history, humanity's most
learned scholars had it proven to their satisfaction that the Earth
was the center of the universe. That is, until Copernicus came along.

John:

You mean it isn't?

73 de Larry, K3LT

(Just kidding!)

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Alrighty then... :)


Alright. Things were never better. In other words, your messages appear to
be showing up (and staying on the server) just fine now.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.

Hmmm.... but if there ever was any career paths that the possibility of
needing to communicate in a non-voice manner those professions just may
be..... If a firefighter gets trapped in a building or cop has some
type
of
situation where he may not be able to speak or something, he may be able
to
tap code out on the speaker.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
.. --. .... - . .-. ...



Wellllllllll, wouldn't just plain tapping get the attention, too?

Kim W5TIT


---

Yeah, it would definitely get attention, but maybe if the code was required,
they could send a simple location of something like "bedroom" or whatever.
Read my responses to KC2HMZ..... :)


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Dave Heil wrote:

Brian wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message

...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty
Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on
CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds.
Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the
QSOs would have been made using slow CW.

So far, the only people here claiming that "it" (whatever "it" is) all
about using fast CW on Hf are you and Len. Len isn't a ham. What's
your excuse?

He;s not much of one?

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...


You're using "magical" like Disneyworld uses it ... as a way of saying
that something is entertaining, fun, and has its own "draw" for some
people.

Absolutely correct and "some people" is tens upon tens of thousands of
us Carl.


I'm talking about "magical" in the sense of "having special powers to
do things beyond the ordinary." There is nothing "magical" about Morse
in that sense.

I'd like to be there when you convince the hundredth experienced CW op
to give it up and become just another terminal operator. Talk about
"ordinary" . .


. . . . the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

Baloney, if the FCC had it's druthers ham radio would evaporate
tomorrow.


Carl - wk3c

w3rv

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:


As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

In fact, it could well be that FCC nowdays may be, or may become, more interested
in seeing the ARS decline, with corresponding decline in amateur radio interest
in the HF part of the spectrum.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on
Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz.

The rrap net on 7030 kHz???

Is that where you PCTAs send "secret messages," safe from the
prying eyes/ears of the no-coders??? :-)

Sheesh ...

Well ain't this special!!! Carl, should you really want to know what "secrets" the
intelligentsia is passing along in their (not so) secret code, all you gotta do it
tune in-
and use that skill you claim to have developed way back when...remember, it doesn't
go away if you *really* learned it to 12wpm.

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many
of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after
you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are
listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post
a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI



That would be witch's...

Uh Oh. There it is. I been wondering when the inevitable girl fight
would happen. Careful here Kim, I think perhaps you're outgunned . .


Kim W5TIT

w3rv

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

To clarify any "vagueness" that may exist in some folks' minds ...

******
From the FCC's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 98-143:

(at para. 30)
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service,
the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with
the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of
modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic,
and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies.
We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends
on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by
ear. In
contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the
changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we
believe that reducing
the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow
the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States
needs expertise."

(and at para. 31)
"
We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one
way to keep amateur

radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we
note that most

emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or
video modes. We

also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency
communication

do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of
communication, in

part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other
modes of

communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services,
such as police, fire,

and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold
amateur radio licenses

or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy

proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's
ability to provide or be prepared

to provide emergency communications."

******

So, you can see, in the FCC's own words, in their view, the "trained pool of
operators"
thing has essentially nothing to do with Morse, but, rather, with technical
and operating
skills in the modes that are PREDOMINANTLY used in comtemporary emergency
communications.

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important
detail
in training IMHO.

Much message traffic is handled via voice or digital modes ... those that
still
pass NTS traffic (or emergency traffic, for that matter) in CW almost
invariably
do so as a matter of personal preference, NOT out of necessity.

How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.

So can I ... but I have found that in real-world emergency communications
there is little demand for formal radiograms ...

Carl - wk3c

Carl,

I'm going to do something that you some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition, many chose to cry to daddy that their homework
was too hard and presented a "barrier" to their pursuits. Daddy will
be more than happy to oblige, for now he won't have to check the
homework. So let the rejoicing begin, but to a newcomer who came into
the fray unbiased...it appears to be one big celebration of
underachievement.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message

...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty
Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on
CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds.
Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the
QSOs would have been made using slow CW.

Were any of them French?

N2EY wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"

there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?

;-)

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.


Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.


Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...


Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

It's like saying that French is a "better" language than English, or
that football is a "better" sport than baseball. Many English speakers
and baseball fans are going to see such things as put-downs. Even if
you don't mean them to be.


that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...


Yet you wrote:

"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."

and

"This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to
things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc."

and

"can be done, with proper modulation and coding"

"How ridiculous!!!!!!!"

All in reference to some other hams' choice of Morse for EME work. On
frequencies for which there hasn't been a Morse test for over a dozen
years.


DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig

from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster
running

on a wheel.


only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")


There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

What you may have seen me write is something like is "Sometimes Morse
will get through when nothing else available will" or "Sometimes Morse
will get through when analog voice modes won't" and other true
statements.


This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?

;-)

See above ...


Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding
with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ...

Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual
station, and actual QSOs?

No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But
the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not
factual.


Yet you ridicule those who do it other ways. You say it can be done
"better", but you haven't done it, which doesn't do much for your
credibility among other hams, nor convince them of the rightness of
your methods.

The way to make your point is NOT to put down the "traditionalists",
but to lead the way by actually doing what you say is possible.
Imagine two stations with 100 watts output and single Yagis
conducting reliable EME. Imagine EME WAS between such stations.
Imagine articles in QST, QEX and other ham publications describing how
it's done and what great fun it is.

It's the difference between a positive attitude and a negative one.


(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)


Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

As far as "what you've done", it's important to realize that most
people aren't going to want to spend their time and money doing
something the way you suggest
when you haven't done it yourself, *and* you call the way they do it
"ridiculous!!!!!".

Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If
you can do "better", go ahead.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)


That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

If you can do "better", go ahead. Define how your way is "better",
then go do it. Otherwise it sounds like "don't do what I do, do what I
say"...

That's how things change in amateur radio - somebody actually goes out
and does
it, and shows the way.

Build and publicize a system that will let hams work EME inexpensively
with
small antennas, low power and easily-duplicated equipment/software.
Pretty soon
those unnamed "traditionalists" will be completely outnumbered.

Do it, write it up and submit it to QST, QEX, CQ, Worldradio,
etc. They will love it. Look at the amount of ink PSK-31 has gotten.

But somebody (G3PLX) had to actually make it work, first. Did he go
around saying Morse and Baudot and ASCII RTTY were "ridiculous"? I
don't think so.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Well done post Jim!

Carl, like it or not, your intense dislike of Morse code stands out
like a sore thumb, obvious to me and others.

Which is why, your protestations to the contrary, I believe you wish at
the *very* least, the complete marginalization of Morse code use.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Alun Palmer wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden will be on the
users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda"
... that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as
"the CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes
bands," the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely
CW users, but users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it"
in a long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave
Sumner's recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill
meant when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone
modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming" the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that
roughly half of our HF bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of
their own volition, decide to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c



I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

HAR! Funny I should come across this post immediately after telling
Carl that the whole thing isn't just about him.

There ya go!

- mike KB3EIA -

Dan/W4NTI wrote:


Not so in Alabama....we talk with a slur and a drawl. Something you Texans
can't quite get...you know with all that blue coat activity during the war
for Southern independence...hi.


Har! Reminds me of when I worked in the field for a cable tv mfgr. The
cable construction guy I worked with was from Talladega. When we met, we
spent most of our time wondering just what the hell the other guy said.

Deep, deep south drawl and whatever they speak in the middle of
Pennsylvania is a deadly combination, especially when after a summer of
12 hour days working with each other, we started to sound alike.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:28 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

[snip] Lemme try again: At one point in history, humanity's most
learned scholars had it proven to their satisfaction that the Earth
was the center of the universe. That is, until Copernicus came along.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ



Copernicus still thought the earth was the center of the universe and he
came up with an elaborate mathematical system to explain the apparent motion
of the planets in the sky including the "retrograde" motion.

It was Galileo who showed that the earth was not the center when he spotted
the moons of Jupiter and determined that they orbited that body and not the
Earth.

And paid dearly for it! Amazing it was only a few years ago the church
admitted error...


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that you some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority. Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

Carl - wk3c

Brian wrote:
Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..


Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient


Can't we all just get along?

Quiet Rodney! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Carl, like it or not, your intense dislike of Morse code stands out
like a sore thumb, obvious to me and others.

Which is why, your protestations to the contrary, I believe you wish at
the *very* least, the complete marginalization of Morse code use.


- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike ... yes, I don't personally like Morse ... however, once again,
I have NO PROBLEM with those that DO, as long as they desist
from attempting to force it on everyone else and denigrating those
who don't like Morse and resist having it forced on them.

Honest ...

Carl - wk3c

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

There are many ways to get rid of something you don't like.

First, (over and over again) we have said, quite honestly, that
we have no goal of eliminating the ability of hams to choose
voluntarily to use Morse, nor to restrict that ability. ALL that
we object to in terms of regulation is the REQUIREMENT
that everyone pass a Morse test to get a license with privs
in the 160-10m bands. (Yes, we object to those who insult
and denigrate those who agree with us, but that's a social
issue, not a regulatory one ...)

I see this a similar to blocking off the inlet to a lake, and watching
the fish die as it dries up.

This is a poor analogy ... you guys are really big on poor analogies.

Unlike blocking the inlet to a lake (preventing the inflow of water),
removing the Morse test requirement does NOT preclude ANYONE
who WANTS to from learning and using Morse.

Since Morse does take some effort to learn, there is no doubt that
less people will take the effort. There will most likely not be enough
new beepers to replace the old ones.

It's up to "the old beepers" to recruit new ones ... THAT is NOT a
legitimate government regulatory function.

As I said, I have no problem with folks using Morse ... but it's no
more my job than the government's to be YOUR recruiting force.
If you want "new beepers," YOU recruit them from those who
are willing ... but that would require some effort on your part,
wouldn't it? It's "easier" for you if the government forces folks
to learn Morse to get an HF license ... then you don't have to
"recruit on the merits," just skim off the ones who decide they
like Morse.

So which group REALLY is unwilling to put forth effort to achieve
a goal ... those who have no desire/intention of using Morse (using
Morse is, after all, not THEIR goal), or those who want a continuing
supply of Morse users, but aren't willing to put forth the effort to gain
"recruits" by working for it, rather than relying on a government life
support system to provide (at least some number of) "recruits" ?????

Next time you talk about folks "putting forth effort to achieve
a goal" think about that one. Maintaining a population of Morse
users is/seems to be YOUR goal ... it's not my job, nor the FCC's.

Do your own recruiting work! (and if you're unwilling, don't complain)

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming"
the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that roughly half of
our HF
bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of their own volition,
decide
to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion
at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

But it isn't all about *you*

Then bitch about it to the folks who you think DO favor phone band expansion
and leave me (and NCI) out of that one ... it's not our agenda.

Carl - wk3c

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio.

Then who is?


The hams are the most qualified to judge what is good for the future of ham
radio. However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of hams.
It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services
so
that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.

Read up on the history of the FCC. They were established to regulate the
various services so all could operate with minimal interference. If there
had been no conflicts among the various users of the radio spectrum, there
would have been no FCC (see the book "200 Meters and Down").


There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.

As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the establishment of
the FCC. We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was only by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in there.


Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.


Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)



The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio. Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services
so
that they can coexist. There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or
decide
what is good for it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

You sound like Queen Latifa; F The Cops.

That's a totally illogical non-sequitur. I believe in following all the
regulations. That's why the FCC exists: to regulate so that all the services
can coexist. I've never said that we should ignore it. However we hams
have a responsibility to actively lobby (either personally or by supporting
organizations like the ARRL) for the good of ham radio. Our voice needs to
be heard along with all the other parties interested in the radio spectrum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose

Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff. I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something and requiring
folks to learn the very basic level in order to pass a 5-wpm hardly
constitutes a "barrier." This is very likely how many will get their
only taste of Morse. Neither CW or it's proponents will sell it on
it's own merits. Sad to say, but many of today's generation just don't
understand why they "have to" learn all that stuff they'll never use.
The recent Regents fiasco is a grim reminder. Only 12 students passed
the test that was really no harder than many folks had taken in years
past. The first reaction..."the test's too hard," from both the
parents and the kids. Rather than take the heat, the DOE is going to
give them an easier test. Behold the result of second generation
underachievement. I strongly disagree, Carl. I think it's a "spot-on"
analogy. It'd almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.

any more (other than
complying with requirements in the ITU Radio Regs that require(d)
Morse tests for folks whose licenses granted privs in the bands
below 30 MHz ... a requirement that has ceased to exist as of
July 05, 2003 ...) (Read the quotes from their R&O again ... it's
quite clear.)

No need, the words of those who are seeking less administrative work
are hardly meaningful. Hmmm, avoiding work...some commonality.

Sadly, many have lost sight of what this was really all about. Element
1 (Domestically, that is.) Rather than investing some time and effort
to satisfy a very basic requirement that is an extremely important
part of AR tradition,

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.

If by "mode-specific aptitude," you mean sitting ones you-know-what
down for 20 mins./day for a mo. and trying some good old-fashioned
study/practice, you'd have a point.

I really wish that folks would stop trying to lean on "tradition" ...
maintaining "tradition" is NOT a legitimate regulatory goal that
should drive the requirements for licensing, plain and simple.

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so. Especially at the 5-wpm level, puh-lease.

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

A 5-wpm test where you have to peg 25 in a row....with numbers,
puctuation marks, and prosigns count double...and you get lotsa time
to fill in the blanks at the end...the "be all and end all" of ham
radio?! ROTFL Like I said, Carl, it'd almost be amusing... :'-(

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.

That's funny. Sure isn't the sentiment I hear on HF. I guess that
"minority" must be on HF. Sadly, I wouldn't expect the welcome
wagon...but I hope I'm wrong about that.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

We all have our crutches, Carl. Be thankful that the FCC need less
works too.

Carl - wk3c

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

That is your opinion, not fact.



Please read "200 Meters and Down". It is an excellent history of the
actions taken by the government regarding radio services. Twice the
government tried to eliminate ham radio. Once was by limiting amateurs to
wavelengths of 200 meters and shorter since the "experts" believed such
frequencies were useless. The government also tried to get rid of hams by
delaying the re-opening of the bands to amateurs after World War I. If it
had not been for the hams lobbying the government, we would not have
recovered from the latter. The FCCs sole purpose is to regulate and
administer the various radio services.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly
impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.

The same applies to learning to sing. The number of people who are truly
tone deaf is miniscule. However there are a large number of people who
"can't carry a tune in a bucket" because they have not been taught how to
discriminate and reproduce different pitches although they can hear them as
different tones. Some people come by this ability to differentiate
naturally and some have to be taught. Those who can't carry a tune are in
the latter category. Anyone that can hear the notes can be talked to sing
passably well although not everyone will be a Pavarotti. Unfortunately a lot
of so called vocal instructors don't know how to teach it. Read the book
"The Joy of Music". A church choir member was going to be asked to leave
because he "could not sing". His real problem was pitch matching. Once he
found a teacher who knew how to address the problem, he rapidly developed a
truly magnificant singing voice.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

That is your opinion, not fact.




Please read "200 Meters and Down". It is an excellent history of the
actions taken by the government regarding radio services. Twice the
government tried to eliminate ham radio. Once was by limiting amateurs to
wavelengths of 200 meters and shorter since the "experts" believed such
frequencies were useless. The government also tried to get rid of hams by
delaying the re-opening of the bands to amateurs after World War I. If it
had not been for the hams lobbying the government, we would not have
recovered from the latter. The FCCs sole purpose is to regulate and
administer the various radio services.

I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have
a few questions on the tests!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio.

Then who is?


The hams are the most qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham
radio.

So convince the FCC that some august body of hams (elected? appointed?
approved by?) should take over setting FCC part 97 rules.

However, FCC involvement is need because the hams will ignore the
needs of other services just as the other services ignore the needs of
hams.
It's a balancing act and the FCC is the juggler.

So you are then saying the FCC should NOT make any
rules regarding operation within ham bands that don't have
any interfernece issues related to them...such as
band segments for phone vs data, etc. morse test
requirements, etc.?

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services
so that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.

Read up on the history of the FCC. They were established to regulate the
various services so all could operate with minimal interference. If there
had been no conflicts among the various users of the radio spectrum, there
would have been no FCC (see the book "200 Meters and Down").

That is so patently obvious...it does not,
however, prove or make any suggestion that the FCC
today does not consider rules as being beneficial or not
to ham radio service.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.

As stated above read up on the early years of radio and the establishment
of
the FCC.

The initial purpose of the FCC derived from interference
mitigation. The charter of the FCC does not, however,
forclose consideration of what is or isn't beneficial for any
individual service.

We were very lucky that ham radio was allowed to continue to exist
since the commercial and military interests wanted us gone. It was only
by
intense lobbying on the part of the hams that we managed to stay in there.

All of which happened about 80+ years ago.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Yes I certainly agree they do the deciding.

Which makes all this discussion rather academic.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...

Carl,

I'm going to do something that some might not expect me to do,
agree. I think that in the frenzy to defend CW testing, some have
tried many different angles. Not that these angles aren't correct wrt
CW itself, just not the retention of CW testing. This is where the use
of the FCC to defend the dropping of CW testing becomes almost
silly...because to be quite honest, the FCC really doesn't care all
that much about the ARS anyway and ANYTHING that'll ease the
administration over the same is more than welcome. So saying "we don't
have to do our homework because daddy says so" doesn't mean that the
homework is unimportant, it means that daddy doesn't care.

I don't agree with the analogy ... the FCC *does* care about the
Amateur Radio Service ... they just don't belive that requiring Morse
tests serves any legitimate regulatory purpose

Please stop right there. What's the hang-up with this "regulatory
purpose" stuff.

The FCC is about "regulatory purpose." If there's no legitimate
purpose for a regulation, the regulation should not exist.

I don't believe it's ALL about regulatory, it's has
something to do with a rich tradition wrt a mode that is still widely
used today. Tradition really does count for something

Yada, yada, yada ... regulators have no business making/keeping
rules that serve no purpose other than to "maintain tradition."

I wish folks would stop leaning on "regulatory" as if it's ok just
because big brother says so.

I'm not saying "its OK because big brother says so," I'm saying
"Big brother shouldn't be making/maintaining regulations that
have no legitimate purpose."

Carl - wk3c

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Some time and effort" can vary widely across the spectrum of
individuals ... for some it can be easy, for others it's nearly
impossible.
Just as some folks can't "carry a tune in a bucket" with respect to
singing ability, Morse involves a "mode-specific aptitude" that folks
possess (or don't) in widely varying degrees.


Please read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". The problem that
people
generally have in learning the code are incorrect study methods and
unrealistic expectations. Yet when proper training methods are employed,
achieving 20wpm is within the reach of almost everyone whether or not they
have any talent for it. Now setting world records does require talent but
you don't have to have talent to be OK at something.

I *was* "OK" at Morse ... but I have NO interest in using that mode and
will likely never do so again in my life. I would have been a much more
valuable asset to the amateur community if I'd had access to HF those
years I didn't simply because of Morse ...

The point is that amateur radio is, per the FCC's own pronouncments
(and they are the ones that set the rules of the game), primarily a
technically-oriented service ... they see no need for making people
practice an ear-hand coordination drill (which has nothing technical
about it) to acquire proficency that isn't necessary and many, if not
most, won't use.

I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably)
intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such
a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion. It's about
as ridiculous as asserting that all hams should be tested for their
ability to hop on one foot, while patting themselves on the head
with their left hands and talking on an HT with their right hands
at the same time without losing their balance. Some folks could
do it easily, some with more difficulty, and some would probably
fall over. Insisting on Morse skill for to obtain what are for the
most part TOTALLY UNRELATED privileges is absurd ... there
is no other way to describe it.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

Carl:

The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the
context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding
amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing
is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will
be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to
the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what
will happen.

Those who believe that Morse testing should remain a requirement
forever will, for the most part, probably never change their minds,
but they are increasingly becoming a minority.

Unfortunately, this is true.

Furthermore, their
view, based more on "tradition" and "emotional attachment" thereto,
is not relevant in terms of what the license requirements should
reasonably be.

However, they will have no practical experience in Morse/CW upon
which to objectively base such an opinion. Therefore, the usage of
CW will be deferred to increased spectrum allocated to phone modes,
mainly for the purpose of selling more HF transceivers and other
station equipment, and memberships in the ARRL. And THAT, my
friend, is the real Joker in this particular deck of cards.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Ordinarily, I would ask you to reflect on this and consider a reply, but
I have been repeatedly shown that that is too much to ask of you. I have
tried to treat you with respect, but if I do not receive equal
consideration,
all that will happen is that you will continue to make a fool of yourself,
and I will continue to be the one pointing to the errors of your ways.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, ya know what, Larry? You have a good time. You must like wasting it.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

Don't worry, it's my time to waste as I see fit!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

Great post Bert, ya sed it all, I wish I'd written it. Your Regents
analogy was masterful. They don't have the gumption to achieve so dumb
the exams to "their" achievement level and their "problem" goes away.

w3rv

No the problem won't go away as the next generation of people will have even
lower achievement and will demand that the tests be made simpler yet.

Dee D. Flint, N8uZE

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message

...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty
Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on
CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds.
Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the
QSOs would have been made using slow CW.

Were any of them French?

Look it up in my online logs after you've finished eating your words on
6m, Brian.

Dave K8MN

Brian Kelly wrote:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many
of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after
you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are
listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post
a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI



That would be witch's...

Uh Oh. There it is. I been wondering when the inevitable girl fight
would happen. Careful here Kim, I think perhaps you're outgunned . .


NOdoudaboudit!

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...

Great post Bert, ya sed it all, I wish I'd written it. Your Regents
analogy was masterful. They don't have the gumption to achieve so dumb
the exams to "their" achievement level and their "problem" goes away.

w3rv

No the problem won't go away as the next generation of people will have even
lower achievement and will demand that the tests be made simpler yet.

You've got it Dee. Some 20 years ago when the question pools and easy access to
testing was begun it appeared that most of the problems potential hams had in getting

access to ham radio licensing were resolved.....save on -. Personal initiative.

Dave Heil wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I would have been a much more
valuable asset to the amateur community if I'd had access to HF those
years I didn't simply because of Morse ...

I share your pain, Carl. I've often thought of my wasted years, not
being in the House of Representatives.

I just cannot grasp how otherwise (presumably at least reasonably)
intelligent people can cling to insistence on the acquisition of such
a mechanical skill in such a quasi-religious fashion.

I understand your inability to grasp the situation...in a
quasi-sarcastic way.

It's about
as ridiculous as asserting that all hams should be tested for their
ability to hop on one foot, while patting themselves on the head
with their left hands and talking on an HT with their right hands
at the same time without losing their balance. Some folks could
do it easily, some with more difficulty, and some would probably
fall over. Insisting on Morse skill for to obtain what are for the
most part TOTALLY UNRELATED privileges is absurd ... there
is no other way to describe it.

Which mode is it that involves that hopping, patting and HT's?


Sounds to me like he's spreading a bit of spectrum

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Seeing as how the USA has more hams than any other country in Region
2, why not have those other countries get their phone subbands in line
with the USA?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I would propose that "200 Meters and Down" be required reading and have
a few questions on the tests!

While "200" is very good, it stops in 1936. I would recommend the following:

- "Calling CQ" by Clinton B. Desoto, W1CBD, available for free download as a
PDF file. May be around as a printed book. Stories of 1920s and 1930s amateur
radio.

- "The Wayback Machine" by Bill Continelli, W2XOY, available for free download
or for viewing on a website. Multichapter history of amateur radio from the
earliest days to the present.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

As to how "important" Morse is ... YMMV ... to some it is
the "be all and end all" of ham radio ... to others it is of no
importance whatsoever ... from the FCC's decisions, it's
clear that, while there was a time when Morse was important,
that time ended long ago and the FCC no longer views Morse
as important in terms of licensing requirements.

Carl:

The above statement can be objectively evaluated only in the
context of future ARRL initiatives and FCC actions regarding
amateur HF sub-band mode authorizations. Once code testing
is finally abolished in the US amateur licensing process, it will
be much easier to re-allocate more spectrum to phone modes, to
the detriment of CW -- and I rather suspect that's precisely what
will happen.

I will be there beside you (figuratively), opposing expansion of the
phone bands ... with ONE *possible* exception. With the realignment
of 40m and broadcasting, we will have 7000-7200 exclusive in all
3 regions. It would seem equitable, given the structure of the other
bands, where the CW/data segments and the phone segments are
pretty equal, to shift the phone band lower limit from 7150 (Extra)
down to 7100 ...since the upper 100 kHz from 7200-7300 will
still be trashed by SW broadcast. This is the ONLY *possible*
situation that I can envision where I would consider supporting an
expansion of HF phone bands.

This is my *personal* comment and NOT "NCI policy" ...

Carl - wk3c