"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

In a way, I do -- because their lack of desire to operate CW is usually
based on a lack of willingness to break their inertia and get down to
learning it. It's called laziness. Yup, that's right -- the "L" word.
L-A-Z-I-N-E-S-S.

Yes sir, guess my lack of desire to play golf can best be attributed
to a lack of willingness to break my inertia and get down
to learing it. Just my basic laziness I guess...nothing at all
involving there's any personal choice, like or dislike involved.

Same ole Larry :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill:

Nice try, but not quite the same thing. A prospective ham not wanting to
learn and/or use the Morse code is like a prospective golfer not wanting
to learn how to putt, because all he wants to do is drive golf balls for
distance. Well, even I can drive a bucket balls at the range to kill an
afternoon, but I'd never call myself a "golfer."

Morse/CW is an essential communications skill for anyone who is going
to consider him/herself to be an effective amateur radio operator.

So you will claim tillhell freezes over I assume. Only
problem is, your claim failed at the only place that
counts...the FCC.

This
is the one skill which gives them the ability to keep on communicating
under adverse conditions that put an end to communication using less
robust or more equipment and electrical capacity-dependent modes. It
gives us the ultimate in emergency backup communications capability,
which is ever-so important and politically-correct for hams these days.

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?


One big reason is that they can then use a not-so-skilled operator.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
..


So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


I am sure the Coast Guard and Navy are trembling in their boots
that the day will come when the only thing they may have to rely
on is CW and no one will have the skill.
The other services realized that CW has been outmoded for
communications for some time and finally gave it up. For hams it
is just another mode to communicate and those who like that mode
will learn it whether it is required or not. Don't set on the edge
of your chair Larry and Dick, anticipating the day when you and
your code skills are going to be the only thing to save the day.
With all the different types of coms available today, it ain't
going to happen. CW is outdated, but it will be a part of ham
radio for some time to come just because of the tradition, but
that is the only importance CW can hold in ham radio, tradition.

In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Bill:

Nice try, but not quite the same thing. A prospective ham not wanting to
learn and/or use the Morse code is like a prospective golfer not wanting
to learn how to putt, because all he wants to do is drive golf balls for
distance. Well, even I can drive a bucket balls at the range to kill an
afternoon, but I'd never call myself a "golfer."

Morse/CW is an essential communications skill for anyone who is going
to consider him/herself to be an effective amateur radio operator.

So you will claim tillhell freezes over I assume. Only
problem is, your claim failed at the only place that
counts...the FCC.

Bill:

Of course it did. The FCC is a government bureaucracy that serves
mainly commercial interests. Amateur Radio just isn't important enough
to them to be bothered to expend the resources necessary to maintain
high licensing standards as the had in the past. No mystery there.

This
is the one skill which gives them the ability to keep on communicating
under adverse conditions that put an end to communication using less
robust or more equipment and electrical capacity-dependent modes. It
gives us the ultimate in emergency backup communications capability,
which is ever-so important and politically-correct for hams these days.

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here. But you already knew that. Moreover,
these "other services" you're talking about use high-powered satellite-
based technology which is designed for their specific purposes. But
you already knew that, as well. When you make apples-to-oranges
comparisons between the all-volunteer Amateur Radio Service and
publicly- or commercially-funded communications services, your argument
falls flat on it's face. And if you didn't already know that, you're just as
deluded as any other NCTA.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here.

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an
outdated, antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are
living in your ham radio dream world too stubborn to see the truth.

"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic, it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham
radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic,
it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?

Arnie -
KT4ST

Arnie,

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient as
it
gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than
required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)

While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best
low-rate codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those
coding rates don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal
quality, etc.) due to the coding involved.

Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but Morse is what? About 3X as
old?

Its not simply a matter of age ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient as
it gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)
While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best low-rate
codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those coding rates
don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal quality, etc.)
due to the coding involved. Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but Morse
is what? About 3X as old? Its not simply a matter of age ...
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So tell me, Carl -- if SSB is not obsolete (as you have so adequately
explained) then why do you think JJ thinks CW is? I mean it has all the
same attributes as your SSB explanation -- and with less bandwidth use and
lower power requirements. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Arnie -
KT4ST

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

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient
as
it gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)
While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best
low-rate
codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those coding
rates
don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal quality, etc.)
due to the coding involved. Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but
Morse
is what? About 3X as old? Its not simply a matter of age ...
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So tell me, Carl -- if SSB is not obsolete (as you have so adequately
explained) then why do you think JJ thinks CW is? I mean it has all the
same attributes as your SSB explanation -- and with less bandwidth use and
lower power requirements. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Arnie -
KT4ST

I'm not saying that CW is totally obsolete ... and I won't presume to speak
for JJ ... I just know that there are much better digital modes available
and
that CW's main purpose these days is as a recreational activity for those
who like it.

I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone should be a proficent
kyaker to go into the water.

Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham

radio

dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
________________________________________________ ______________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic,

it's

time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?

Arnie -
KT4ST


Arnie,

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient as
it
gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than
required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)

While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best
low-rate codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those
coding rates don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal
quality, etc.) due to the coding involved.

Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but Morse is what? About 3X as
old?

SSB - established mathematically in 1914, First patent in 1923, first
transatlantic transmission in 1923, transatlanti public use in 1927,
first amateur use around 1933. Didn't catch on for around 15 years.

- Mike KB3EIA -