"D. Stussy" wrote in message .org...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, N2EY wrote:

Amateur radio operators, however, use it extensively. On the HF/MF
amateur
bands, it is the second most popular mode of communications, only
slightly
behind SSB in popularity.

1) Just because it won't be tested for doesn't mean that it can't be
used!

Of course. That's not the point. The NCVEC petition tries to convey
the message of "nobody else uses Morse anymore" as if that has some
relevance to what hams do, and should be tested on.

2) In this petition, they made NO adjustment to the "CW protected
bands."

It is undoubted that someone will come along with a follow-up
petition to
decrease or eliminate the CW bands.

Except there aren't any "CW protected bands" or "CW bands". There are
'phone/image subbands and CW/data subbands, however. Decreasing or
eliminating them without other measures being taken is not a good idea
at all.

Is it really that much trouble for people to learn to write "CW/data
subbands"? Because that's what they are, despite the fact that some
people think they are CW only.

I would be in favor of reducing their size
to between 1/3 and 1/4 of each band (in many places, it's 1/2 of the
band),
but not complete elimination.

Let's take a look at what's in place now:

Band - Total kHz - CW-data/phone-image kHz %

160 - 200 - 0/200 - 0%/100%
80/75 - 500 - 250/250 - 50%/50%
40 - 300 - 150/150 - 50%/50%
30 - 50 - 50/0 -100%/0%
20 - 350 - 150/200 - 43%/57%
17 - 100 - 32/68 - 32%/68%
15 - 450 - 200/250 - 44%/56%
12 - 100 - 40/60 - 40%/60%
10 -1700 - 300/1400 - 18%/82%
Total
HF/MF 3750 - 1172/2578 - 31%/69%

So what we have right now is more than 2/3 of US HF/MF available to
phone-image use. Except for 30 meters, no band is less than 50%
phone-image. VHF/UHF is wide open for all modes except for two little
CW-only stretches at the bottom of 6 and 2 meters.

Isn't that adequate? Why should the modes which are least spectrally
efficent be rewarded with still more spectrum? NCVEC talks about new
modes, technically knowledgeable people, yada yada yada, all the
electropolitically correct buzzphrases. Will those people need wider
phone/image subbands to use their manufactured rigs on SSB?

There might be a case for some adjustments, though, like creating a
non-phone subband on 160, widening 75 a bit, adding modes other than
CW to the 6 and 2 meter subbands, and creating CW-only subbands on
each HF band.

Along with CW in many places come some of the
digital operating modes (at least on HF) - and those too need
protection from
voice.

"Many places"? Try "everywhere". CW has no exclusive subbands except
for those two on the bottom of 6 and 2. CW has to share every bit of
non-phone HF/MF space with data modes. In a nocodetest future, that
should change.

The petition talks about technically knowledgeable people and new
modes and technologies. On HF, that stuff is almost exclusively
happening in the CW/data subbands. Unless you count "single wideband"
as a progressive new mode....

PS: I haven't significantly used code since I passed it on the exam
for my
license, nor do I plan to.

That's fine. There's a bunch of modes I had to learn about for the
tests that I haven't used significantly, if at all, since I passed the
test. Nor do I plan to.

A lot of hams, including me, use Morse very significantly. The NCVEC
petition talks as if we code-using hams don't exist.

(If you look me up, you'll know that I have at
least 13wpm because I held an Advanced as my prior license class from
10
years ago.)

How do I know you didn't get the Advanced via medical waiver? ;-) (Not
that there's anything wrong with that!) Waivers have been available
for over 13 years.

There is no requirement that any radio amateur actually use Morse
code. Radio
amateurs use it by choice.

Justification for it NOT to be a requirement.

Perhaps. Yet NCVEC did not pursue that line of reasoning, which could
be a very powerful argument. Instead, they wrote as if they want code
USE by hams to go away.

But the petition claims that hams ONLY use it because of the test
requirement. That's just not true.

(Do we all know what requirement means? :-) )

The whole world wonders.

Written tests are a burden to the applicants, too.

Are you advocating no license testing at all?

Nope. Just the opposite.

How about no licenses?

Nope, just the opposite.

Having to fill out the paperwork is a burden too!

Exactly. And it turns away some people.

(I am not advocating dropping the license requirement; just showing
that his
argument can be taken ad absurdium.)

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid technique of showing the validity of a
hypothesis. If a hypothesis can be shown to logically lead to a
contradiction or absurdity, the hypothesis must be false.

However, it should be noted that most of the Commission's
enforcement actions
for poor and illegal operating practices such as jamming,
obscenity/profanity,
failure to identify, operation outside of license privileges and
failure to
heed bandplans are against amateurs using voice modes, not Morse
code or
digital modes.

Profanity, by itself, is illegal? The FCC has never said that.
There may be
limits and conditions where it's inappropriate, but there have been
findings
that in some very limited contexts that profanity by itself does NOT
cause a
violation to have occurred.

Doesn't change the basic fact of what I was pointing out: Phone
operation generates far more enforcement actions than CW/data
operations. Some of these enforcement actions are for behavior that is
truly awful, and very embarrassing to the ARS.

When I first started out, I recall there was a common philosophy that
'phone operators had to set the highest possible standards of
courtesy, respect and operating skill while on the air because anyone
and everyone could be listening. That philosphy seems to have become
inverted over the years.

Following this logic, the written exams should be stripped of
anything a
licensee does not have an interest in.

Does that include having to answer ANY question? :-)

Any question the examinee doesn't think is relevant. For example, why
should someone who never, ever intends to use voice modes, or who may
be physically unable to use them, have to learn about them? Isn't that
a burden on them? Why should they have to learn something they'll
never, ever use?

The NCVEC petition says it's a burden to require a code test to
operate voice modes. If that's valid, why isn't it a burden to require
questions on voice modes in order to operate CW or data modes? Look at
all the written testing a ham has to go through just to operate a
manufactured CW rig on 7005 kHz. Why?

Some might say "because it supports the basis and purposes of the
ARS". The obvious response is "How?" Also, there is no requirement
that each amateur support the basis and purposes of the ARS in any way
other than following the rules.

What it all boils down to is that except for some very basic rules,
regulations and safety considerations, most of the test requirements
for an amateur license come down to somebody's opinion about what
should be tested. Opinion and nothing more.

This proposal simply drops Element 1 without making any other
changes. Oddly
enough, if it were adopted, Technicians would gain a bit of 10
meter SSB. Most
of the privileges Technicians would gain would be slices of 80, 40,
15 and 10
meter CW.

I don't see a problem with that. What's your problem with it?

It's incomplete. It looks like the NCVEC had blinders on.

Do you really think that the very best we can do for entry-level HF
privileges for new hams in a nocodetest 21st century future is to give
them tiny slices of CW on four bands and SSB on one band, and at the
same time give them all of amateur VHF/UHF? Is that really what's best
for the ARS?

This petition is meant to address the change in international
agreement
dropping the code requirement as a license prerequisite and NOTHING
MORE.
They're not out to overhaul the entire service; just this one part.

Which means FCC may do the whole NPRM cycle again for just that. Why
not do something a little more comprehensive? Will the FCC be flooded
with followup petitions? Probably. Carl, WK3C, has said here that's
not the way to go. I agree with him. Are we both wrong?

At least they're doing it in a way that has no impact on the rest of
it.

If you want to mess with the mandated bandplans, file your own
petition.

Bandplans are voluntary. Subbands are part of the rules. I say the
subbands could use some work. Let's see....3500-3575, CW only.
3575-3675, data and CW. 3675-3725, Data modes including digital
voice, and CW. 3725-4000, phone....

73 de Jim, N2EY