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

I said "many places" because it is NOT true for 6m and 2m. "Everywhere" is
wrong. I chose my words carefully here, and your carelessness has introduced
error.

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.

Because if I had used the medical waiver procedure, I would have been an Extra
back then..... I passed all the written elements in 1992 (3 in one session),
but didn't get 20wpm within a year (but got 13, and element 4B expired). The
ease of element 4B back then should have clued you in....

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.

Their involvement is with testing, not operating....

(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.

....But only if it's clear that's what you're doing. There are some on this
group for which such is beyond their comprehension.

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.

Apparently, you've never been to Southern California. There were times where
one could count the violations on our "animal farm" repeater - and sometimes
the number of violations per minute would exceed the number of seconds in a
minute. Most of those misfits are still licensed. Watch out HF - here they
come!

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?

So, if I don't think any question is relevant, I can dispose of the entire
test? :-)

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?

They had to offer some justification.

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.

And if the FCC didn't like that, then they'd take testing back and do it
themselves.

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.

I disagree. They aren't looking to refarm the service; just take "one bite
from the apple." (It may be the first bite, but not the last.) Perhaps they
believe in taking SMALL steps and seeing what happens. Alternatively, since
their involvement is with testing, perhaps that's all they felt they could
justify.

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?

I don't pretend to speak for what is best for the entire service. I've posted
my thoughts about licensing elsewhere.

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....

Actually, bandplans aren't voluntary if someone can be cited for not following
them (and that has happened). If they were clearly voluntary, then such a
citation would be defeated (at least, defeatable) in an agency hearing.