"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about
to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of
then see
of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham
radio
beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies".



Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't
believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now.
Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as you
elude to have yet to be proven.



What I Said!

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.

So??? That use is purely a matter of choice ... those who chose to use
Morse should have the freedom of choice to learn it and to so ... however,
at the same time, those who are not interested in using Morse should not
be forced to learn it in order to gain HF privileges ...

2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions ... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.) But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't should
not be forced.

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
"charlesb" wrote in message
igy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

Floyd, I suggest you look up any post by K2UNK and see if his manner
of conducting civil debate "does not advertise hams well". I mention
Bill specifically because although I disagree with many things he
writes here, he is able to debate effectively without being insulting
or derogatory to the other side.

IOW, "gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable".

He is not the only one, just the one that comes quickest to mind.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.

Excuse me ... I think you mean "proficiency in " not "knowledge of" ...
those are important distinctions

Those are inaccurate distinctions, Carl. Element 1 is IN NO WAY a test of
one's Morse code "proficiency." The 5-wpm test is just barely sufficient to
test the applicant's "knowledge of" the 43 required characters. IOW, did
s/he memorize the required character set. Are you intentionally trying to
spread this mistruth to rationalize NCI's "goal" or do you really consider a
newbie whose Element 1 CSCE hasn't even dried yet Morse "proficient?" Why
don't you just tap into the knowledge base, Carl? Ask the OT's and learn
from them That's what they're there for.

... I have no problem with test questions
on the theory of OOK Morse ("What's the necessary bw for x wpm?"
"What are "key-clicks" and how can they be prevented?" etc.)

With the answers unpublished?

But a
proficiency requirement as a condition of access to HF is totally out of
line.

I agree. I'm glad we don't currently have one.

3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.

Other modes also offer "unique advantages" ... those advantages are in
the eye of the beholder and largely subjective ... those who believe that
it is advantageous to learn/use Morse will do so ... those who don't
should
not be forced.

"Forced?" Lol!

4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

The FCC disagrees ...

I wonder how much you'd support the "big brother knows best" if they agreed?
Luckily, they too wish to reduce their work.

[snipped the remainder of debate on privs vs. license class as
irrelevant to the Morse question]

Carl - wk3c

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ...
some snipage


I'm ALSO going on the demographic of all those
nocode techs

Which demographic? The ARRL/READEX poll of 1996 showed that the youngest

hams

were the most procodetest. Bert Craig, WA2SI, has told you here that he

does

not consider Element 1 a "barrier" or "hoop". Other newcomers have said

the

same thing. Don't they count?

The ONLY thing that counts


Hold on a sec, Bill.

We've been told that:

- we have to get rid of the code test to increase growth in the ARS
- (most) young people aren't interested in learning the code
- The future is newcomers and young hams
- The current 5 wpm test is an unreasonable burden on the VECs and new
hams but written tests aren't

and the big one:

"the demographic is heavily tilted towards the no code test side"

Now, do these things matter or not?


It's all opinion and marketing. Marketing is what brings us milkshakes
that are so thick you can't get them through a straw. Marketing is what
gives us Ketchup that you can't get out of the bottle. but then "thicker
and richer" sells don't it. Marketing is what causes convenience stores
to sell "Ultra Mega" soda's with 144 ounces of soda and the resulting
calories, and fast food restaraunts to prepare us "Super doopersize"
2000 calorie meals when all we need is 300 calories.

The relation is that the marketing words (or contramarketing words)
thrown around sound like they might be a good thing. Here the NCTA's
have the edge too. Look at the words used and it s pretty clear,
"Outdated" "Future" all the marketing words are there.


And as anyone familiar with marketing knows, It does not make a damn
bit of difference if you are right or not.

The truth does *not matter* in this case, and besides, what exactly is
the truth? I guess it is who you hang out with.

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.



is the answer to the question: What is the
rational
for retaining any code test now that the ITU treaty has eliminated the
requirement from the treaty?


I think you meant "rationale"

And here it is:

1) Morse code is widely used in the ARS, particularly HF/MF amateur
radio.
2) Knowledge of morse code can only be measured by a practical skill
test.
3) Morse code offers unique advantages to the radio amateur, but these
advantages are only available if Morse code skills are learned.
4) All of the above support the Basis and Purposes of the ARS.

Does that constitute an irrefutable proof? Of course not. Neither does
the 20 pages of the NCI petition.

NCI pettition is all opinion.




The FCC answered that in their R&O for 98-143. The FCC indicated
none of the arguments, comments or suggested reasons put forth by
pro-code test advocates were of sufficient rational or justification. to
keep any testing of morse.


Sure.

And this is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea. Take a look
at the 120 page ARRL report and the videos, then tell me what kind of
"expert agency" should give such a system the time of day. Note that
the BPL'rs want the Part 15 levels RAISED!

This is also the same FCC that wanted to allow media giants to become
practical monopolies so that radio and TV programming become even more
homogenized.

This is the FCC that "solved" the freebander linear problem by
restricting the manufacture and sale of HF amplifiers, which ties the
hands of legitimate ARS manufacturers but hasn't kept one amp out of
any illegal's hands.

"Expert agency", they're called, right?

who could get on HF were it not for a stupid Morse
requirement ...

Hmmm...."stupid Morse requirement"? It's been passed by elementary school
children, old people, people with severe disabilities, and everything in
between. Heck, under the old rules we had at least one 8 year old Extra!

The fact is that if Element 1 is dropped, all those non-code-tested Techs
will
gain some SSB on 10 meters and four slices of HF CW. (Ironic) In order for
them
to get more, they have to jump through another hoop...I mean, pass another
written exam.....;-)

You may not think the General or Extra writtens are very hard, nor that
they
are "unreasonable", but the fact remains that they have not been shown to
be
necessary for safe and legal operation of an amateur station.

Just where has that been shown and by whom?


It's self evident. Common sense.

FCC considers a Tech to be competent to
design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all OPERATE an amateur
transmitter on any authorized frequency above 30MHz, using any
authorized mode, at full legal power.

But it requires a General license for the FCC to consider someone to
be competent to design/build/repair/align/maintain and most of all
OPERATE an amateur transmitter on most authorizeds frequency below
30MHz, using any authorized mode, at full legal power. In fact,
Techs-with-HF are only authorized to use two modes and small slices of
four bands.

Why is a Tech considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 51
MHz but not 29 MHz? Why is a Tech considered competent to use CW, SSB,
AM, FM, FSK, PSK, and a host of other modes above 30 MHz but only CW
and SSB below 30 MHz?
What is in the General written (besides a few regs) that is so
essential that it MUST be tested?

One of the reasons I heard was that the VHF bands are more localized,
and therefore the technician, if he or she did commit rules violations,
would at least confine it to frequencies that were not globe spanning.


Now consider the Extra vs. General written. There's no difference
between what a General can do and what an Extra can do on the air
except that the Extra has a little more spectrum to do it in. Why is a
General considered competent to run a 1500 W transmitter on 3.530 MHz
but not 3.520 MHz?

Who knows what the rationale is? Maybe a little bit less crowding for
the Extras?


The FCC certainly hasn't been convinced of that.


See above about convincing FCC.

Why is a Tech considered qualified to use any authorized mode/freq above
30 MHz
but unqualified to use all but CW and SSB on a few narrow slices of HF?

You are now arguing privileges, not code testing.


I am arguing that focusing on the code test as a "stupid" requirement
opens up the same can of worms on the writtens.

Bingo! I've been saying that for while now.

It's a fact that you do not need to be tested at all to operate high
power levels on HF. CB'ers do it all the time.

Let's try a little marketing talk ..............


"The written tests are an obsolete throwback to an earlier time when
Amateurs HAD to know how to put a station together using a lot of their
own handicraft. Now that HF rigs are no more complicated to put on the
air than hooking up a VCR to a television, it is pointless to insist on
the hazing requirement of forcing the prospective amateur to spend
countless hours learning things that he or she may have no use for."

There is nothing wrong with an Amateur having knowledge of the things
covered in the present and obsolete written examinations, but why should
a person who has no intention of ever doing anything but using his ready
made rig to talk to other hams be forced to learn these things that he
or she will never use.

Those who wish to know things like Ohms law, and various arcane laws
are encouraged to do so, but to require all hams to know such things is
a form of hazing, or is this a case of "I had to learn the band edges,
so by gaw, everyone has to"!

The written examinations are keeping people out of the ARS who refuse
to jump through these arbitray hoops set up by those who want to see the
ARS as some kind of elite service. Those elite people are destroying the
ARS by discouraging participation by all Americans.

Sound about right Jim? Reasonable arguments I think. Wrong, but reasonable.


- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote:
Historically Charles, this newsgroup was formed specifically to take
the code/nocode debate out of rec.radio.amateur.misc. That was
about 8-10 years ago.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Which is all the more support for his point that it does not advertise
hams well.

Floyd, I suggest you look up any post by K2UNK and see if his manner

Actually Jim, you probably didn't spend enough time reading what
little I wrote. It doesn't say a *thing* about Bill. You might
notice that he doesn't flood this or any newsgroup with innane
posts on a daily basis, and in fact I agree with almost
everything I've seen him post here.

I will grant though, that it _was_ about you.

of conducting civil debate "does not advertise hams well". I mention
Bill specifically because although I disagree with many things he
writes here, he is able to debate effectively without being insulting
or derogatory to the other side.

IOW, "gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable".

He is not the only one, just the one that comes quickest to mind.

So you have exceptions that prove the rule. The point was that
the rule *is* valid.

Which is all the more support for that point that it does not
advertise hams well.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.

It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's
feel the need for a government-sponsored support system.

NCI pettition is all opinion.

No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate
need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how
the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the
ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for
a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc.

The petition is chock-full of facts ...

[snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates
about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse
test issue ...]

Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

PCTA's haven't done enough proper marketing of their product IMO.


It's really HARD to market a product that few want ... that's why the PCTA's
feel the need for a government-sponsored support system.


NCI pettition is all opinion.


No ... the NCI petition is loaded with the facts about how any legitimate
need for a government-mandated Morse test evaporated years ago, how
the FCC has determined that it does not comport with the purpose of the
ARS, how the test serves no regulatory purpose, how it doesn't "make for
a better, more well-behaved, more technically competent operator, etc., etc.

The petition is chock-full of facts ...

Well, that's your opinion anyhow! 8^)

But seriously, if I could offer some advice. It is okay to have an
opinion. You have your's and I have mine.

It's even okay to try to turn your opinion into the law of the land. If
enough people agree, it will happen.

But there is a mistake of hubris in believing that ones own personal
opinion is fact.



[snipped the rest because I refuse to get drawn into unrelated debates
about privs vs. license class, etc. that have nothing to do with the Morse
test issue ...]

Probably a good idea...

- Mike KB3EIA -

"DickCarroll" wrote in message
om...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, I considered it, then rejected it as inaccurate. Nocoders aren't
about
to dole out $34 per year for *nothing* That's exactly what most of
then see
of value to them in ARRL membership, since they really aren't into ham
radio
beyond their HT, and have no use for al the many ARRL "bennies".



Gee... I have more than just the "HT" as you elude to and still don't
believe in the value of the membership at the rates it currently is now.
Other than a really expensive magazine subscription, these "bennies" as
you
elude to have yet to be proven.



What I Said!


So let's hear about these alleged 'bennies" Dick!


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

C'mon Charles,

Don't you realize, some people just are not happy unless they are bitching
about someone. And the others are the kind that like to watch others bitch.
Why do you think talk shows like Jerry Springer etc. do so well? This is
just another version in a different form. Do you honestly think that an
actual intelligent debate over a topic could actually occur here?


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"charlesb" wrote in message
gy.com...
I don't have any strong preference about the Code / No Code issue, but I
have a well developed opinion about the group of hams who have endlessly
repeated the same tired flamewar crapola for years on this newsgroup, over
the Code / No Code issue.

Less than a dozen "hams" have used this issue as an excuse to turn this
newsgroup into a running flame war that has gone on for years, much to the
detriment of the hobby. People look at this newsgroup to see what hams are
like - and what they see would reflect poorly on any hobby.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL