In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:

And they got NO input from FISTS that round at all, either. It didn't seem
likely that FCC would go so far as they did, thus there was no movement within
the organization.

There's also the fact that there was an ARRL proposal on the table, as well as
others.

And not many members commented individually.

I did.

This time WILL be different!

Oyez!

To many folks, reduction in the code tests was one thing, but total elimination
is quite another. Note too that many hams are/were of the opinion "reduce the
code, expand the written" but what we got was reduction across the board.

As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

Over 10,000 last time I looked. And FISTS started with #1. Of course not all
the numbers are active - dues are $15/year.

Comments from
members will be numerous, and after all, FCC officials have said they want
"us" to let
them know what we want in the way of restructuring rules! That's what they'll
get!

Maybe if FISTS had commented en masse last time it might have some effect
on the outcome,
given FCC comments noted above. It remains to be seen, of course.

Exactly. Maybe code test retention is the majority position today, as it was in
1998-1999 (judging by comments) Or maybe the majority has shifted. Maybe FCC
will go with the majority opinion this time, which it did not do in 1999.

It should be noted that the FISTS petition addresses more than the issue of
code testing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

FISTS #4360

Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

Or we could do an "either or": For the extra, pass element 1 or a new
element 5 (a tougher written) with your general license. And for the
general,
either element 1 and the general written, or the general and extra writtens
with your tech license.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer
(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends on
what you determine to be "equivalent data rates".

But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most basic
data mode still in use by hams.

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for one
mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea.

What mode do you use most on HF, Carl?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

However, Dick and other Morse fanatics insist that those modes aren't
a suitable option because they (dread the thought) require a computer

Modes which require a computer to run 'em cut both ways. Having to use
a computer to run the stuff represents a huge increase in station
complexity and the inevitable corresponding decrease in station
reliability. Additionally cost, weight, space, power consumption,
required technical skills and a bunch of other factors also mitigate
against the use of computer-based modes.

Given the mythical average ham who could care less about weak-signal
performances and/or throughput rates. Very few of which show up around
here, least of all in this discussion. So in this sense Dick is right.


(and some hardware/software that I'm sure "Shannon doesn't mean squat
Dick" couldn't even begin to understand).

Carl - wk3c

w3rv

So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing?



None that you would understand

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
So you have no rational argument for the retention of code testing?



None that you would understand

I agree with Bruce ... no argument he could possibly present
would be coherent enough for any reasonably rational, intelligent
person to understand. :-)

Carl - wk3c

Come winter after the antenna work is done, I intend to work on designing
some high speed stuff.

Carl - wk

Who are you kidding, you have been claiming this for years.

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Dick Carroll; wrote:

It isn't on the FCC's website yet but you can read it here....




http://www.eham.net/articles/6371




If CW does enjoy a 13 dB advantage over SSB, avid DX hounds will
choose to learn it and use it on their own. No need for a license
test.
CW makes for small bandwidth combined with simple equipment.
NASA doesn't use CW with its deep space probes, but they have
fancy equipment on both ends. I mention this in that NASA does the
ultimate in weak signal work, something CW is usually good for on
ham bands with simple equipment and trained operators. But there's
no CW op on the space probe.

And plain old binary FSK has a bit more than a 9 dB weak signal advantage
over OOK Morse ... if you slow it down to equivalent data rates ...

If you have an optimized receiver and suitable conditions, maybe - depends
on
what you determine to be "equivalent data rates".

Bits is bits ... same equivlent data rate is pretty clear.

So we'll say 30 wpm plain text.

But hams don't do slow-HF-BFSK. 60 wpm FSK Baudot RTTY is about the most
basic
data mode still in use by hams.

No, because it works well at higher rates and higher rates are desirable.

Sometimes higher rates are desirable.

BUT, if they *did* slow WAY down to Morse rates, they'd have at
least a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse..

After your mistakes in the "ARS License Numbers" thread, Carl, I tend to be a
bit skeptical about your numbers. 54%, anyone?

More modern digital techniques are even better. Some produce perfect
copy at s/n ratios where even the best CW operator couldn't even detect
the PRESENCE of a CW signal, let alone begin to copy it.

That all depends on the equipment in use. Using a receiver optimized for
one
mode in an attempt to receive another may or may not be a good idea.

What mode do you use most on HF, Carl?

I'm playing with the soundcard modes right now ... PSKxx in particular,
helping some friends check out some pretty slick freeware they're
developing.

That's nice....guess SSB has it limitations, huh?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ilgate.org, "Hans
Kohb" writes:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote


http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/FIST_FCC_Petition_8-30-303.pdf


Perhaps FISTS should consider sending this in as a comment to be
considered with RM-10787, rather than a separate petition.

I think it's better as a separate petition.

If FCC grants the "no Morse test" petition, then it is unlikely to roll
back that decision at a later date.

Which is why a separate petition is a better idea.

The most likely scenario now is that FCC will continue to receive petitions,
assign them RM numbers, and take comments. Doing so takes almost no FCC
resources and allows lots of time for ideas to percolate through the process.
Perhaps FCC hopes some sort of consensus will be forthcoming.

There are also a couple of petitions from as far back as 2001 or so that are
still hanging fire. For example, FCC has not ruled on the ARRL petition to
"refarm" the Novice bands.

At some point, the flurry of petitions will slow down, comments taper off, and
FC can do one of two things:

1) Create an NPRM (most likely)

2) Change the rules without an NPRM.

I think a lot depends on whether a clear consnesus surfaces from the comments.

73 de Jim, N2EY