"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh....tell 'im you'll get back to him when he
has something intelligent to say. I told Larry that
a couple of weeks ago and, except to tell him I
wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in meeting
him or most others in this newsgroup, I've not
posted a thing to him since. I just can't find the
"intelligent" part of his posts.


He does have the habit of trying to twist things when the discussion
doesn't go his way and I simply don't have the time for that nonsense. If he
doesn't want to discuss the issue seriously, he can discuss it with himself.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:
And why would the ARS wish to continue to specifically
develop radio operators capable of using code?

Because the mode offers lots of advantages to radio amateurs.

What benefit does it offer?

- Narrow bandwidth required
- Can be used with a wide variety of technologies
- Capable of both manual and machine generation and recognition
- excellent weak-signal performance
- QSK (near-duplex operation possible on a simplex channel)
- only popular non-voice "audio" mode (can you work PSK-31
while driving?)
- usable by many disabled persons

Not what it offers you, but what benefit does it offer to the
ARS (here is your opportunity to show your position is not
just self-serving)?

See above. That's the short list.


All those are reasons for a person to choose to use code, but not reasons
for the Amateur Radio Service to continue to specifically develop radio
operators capable of using this mode. Understand the difference? One is a
choice based on the benefits of a mode while the other is a mandated
requirement concerning a specific mode. I'm all for urging people to try
Morse Code/CW. But the issue at hand is a specific requirement to do so,
which I don't think offers any real benefit to the Amateur Radio Service.


How will this (code skill testing) help to keep the ARS
abreast of modern technology, insuring our continued
value to others?

The mode can be successfully used with equipment of almost
any level of complexity, so that beginners can start off with
simple equipment and work their way up to advanced
technologies. And have good performance all along the path.


Again, a reason to promote code, but not a reason to mandate it.


How will this help move the ARS into the future (where we
should be mainly focused)?

By empowering more hams to design and build their own radios.


Electronics can clearly be taught without a code testing requirement. I'm
playing around with basic electronics, obviously without those code skills.
However, I'm not building a basic CW rig because it has no widespread
application in a modern world. I'm repairing an old SSB radio to learn more
about it, but that is clearly a minor project at the moment (my intent is to
build a simple SSB radio one day). Instead, I'm now mainly focused on
microcomputers, interfacing, programming, and robotics. That leaves little
time for pounding out messages with a code paddle.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 24 Sep 2003 03:18:20 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Sure it is. Part of the basis and purpose of the ARS as specified in
Part 97 is to develop a pool of trained radio operators. Since nobody
else uses CW anymore, it is no longer necessary to develop pools of
Morse-trained radio operators.

Did you see that everybody? "...nobody uses CW anymore." Yup,
he REALLY said that!

Do me a favor, John, and tell that to K2RSK next time you see him!

Uh, time out, Larry.

Take another look at what was quoted, Larry. It does not say, "Nobody
uses CW anymore." What it says is, "Nobody ELSE uses CW anymore."

There is no longer any use of CW in U.S. commercial, government, or
military radio communications. In the maritime HF bands you'll still
find some individual radio ops chit-chatting on the ship-to-ship
simplex frequencies using CW, but that's the extent of it. CW is no
longer used for passing message traffioc ship-to-ship and is no longer
used to communicate with the shore stations (which abandoned CW three
years ago, a fact that was well-publicized in the radio magazines and
on the Internet discussion groups).

I will assume this is an honest mistake on your part and that even you
aren't so low as to stoop to deliberately overlooking the word "else"
in what I posted. The amateur radio service is the only radio service
left where CW is used by any significant percentage of the operators.
You should know that as well as the rest of us do, right?

Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress:

Valuable? In some respects, perhaps. It does have its advantages,
although it also has its disadvantages.

Whaaaaat? I thought you just said "...nobody uses CW anymore."

That's what you get for thinking instead of reading what was actually
posted, I guess. Put your bloody glasses on and try again!

Well, anyway, please enumerate all the "disadvantages" of the
Morse/CW mode.

1. Use of this mode requires that the operator at the other end of the
circuit can copy code. Half the hams licensed in the U.S. are at
Technician. Many hams licensed at General and Extra learned the code
well enough to pass Element 1 and want nothing more to do with it.
Even hams who passed code tests at higher speeds no longer use it.
Even if they did pass the test, chances are they haven't used it on
the air (probably never had any intention of doing so, since all they
wanted to do was pass the stupid test so they could upgrade and gain
the privileges they were really interested in), so they probably can't
even zero-beat to your signal. There's no guarantee of finding an op
at the other end with any proficiency in copying the code, especially
at any significant speed, which means that even if you do find a ham
who went through the testing procedures recently enough to still
remember the alphabet, you're going to have to send pretty slowly in
order for what you send to be copied, which means that...

2. You can get the same message through faster using another mode.
At 5wpm (which is the fastest code speed that any US-licensed ham is
required to be able to copy), in the time it takes to send a 2x3
callsign in CW, you can send a couple of whole sentences on phone.

For that matter, in sixty seconds at 5 WPM, you can send 12 words. You
can also send an entire picture in SSTV in sixty seconds - and, as we
all know, one picture is worth a thousand words. :-)

3. Because of the narrow bandwidth of a CW signal, CW ops tend to
operate rather close together, requiring an optional filter for most
rigs to be able to zero in on one and only one signal. The same rig
out of the box will have a much easier time zeroing in on one and only
one phone signal - assuming that ops observe the courtesy of keeping
7kc or so between themselves and the nearest frequency in use.

4. I'm aware of at least one rig that's been manufactured over the
past ten years or so that doesn't even *have* the CW mode. RadioShack,
one of your former employers, sold a 10m rig like this. For all I
know, there are others as well. Hard to work somebody in CW when their
rig doesn't have that capability, wouldn't you say?

Want me to continue?

Basic? I'm not too sure of that. It was once upon a time. I'm inclined
to think that time is either passed, or very close to it. I don't know
what percentage of hams is sufficiently skilled with the mode to
actually use it for on-air contacts, but surely the percentage must be
shrinking daily.

And just exactly what do you think is causing that, John?

What, reading comprehension problem, Larry? :-)

Obviously, it's because there is a growing percentage of hams who are
not interested in using a method of communication that was originally
conceived over 150 years ago, and descended from a method of sending
messages over hardwired telegraph lines.

As for the code testing requirement being essential to the continued
use of the mode - if that's the case, then the patient is already
brain dead and being kept alive through purely artificial means, and
will expire anyway as soon as somebody pulls the plug, either
accidentally or deliberately. The question then becomes, for how long
do we prolong the inevitable, and for what purpose?

I'm not suggesting that we pull the plug. I'm suggesting that we use
a well-known cure and allow the patient to recover.

Fine! But a full recovery still involves getting the patient off that
life-support system, doesn't it.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 24 Sep 2003 03:18:21 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 05:37:15 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote:

So, I agree with you that we may well be better off,
from the standpoint of preserving the use of the mode
within the hobby, to remove the testing requirement
and allow the mode to stand on its own merits. If
someone asks, "Why should I learn Morse code?" the
answer right now is basically, "You have to in order to
get the license." And the reaction is basically, "Screw
that, I'll just find another hobby."

Lose that, and we have "Because sometimes a CW
signal will get through when a voice signal won't, and
because Morse contacts in a contest are worth more
points, and because some operators enjoy it so much
that (snip)


It's basic human psychology. We tend to resist the expected and enjoy self
discoveries. And this is especially true when it comes to recreation.

You pretty much got my point, Dwight. It's human nature to resist what
gets forced on us. Personality traits differ from one individual to
the next, of course, but generally, I think it is safe to conclude
that the majority of people prefer to choose their own recreational
activities rather than having them mandated by governmental decree or
regulation. I'm certainly among those in that majority.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:35:33 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

All those are reasons for a person to choose to use code, but not reasons
for the Amateur Radio Service to continue to specifically develop radio
operators capable of using this mode. Understand the difference? One is a
choice based on the benefits of a mode while the other is a mandated
requirement concerning a specific mode. I'm all for urging people to try
Morse Code/CW. But the issue at hand is a specific requirement to do so,
which I don't think offers any real benefit to the Amateur Radio Service.

There's the rub, Dwight. Notice how the PCTAs refuse to see the
distinction between the two? I think there's a reason for that. They
know that the majority of hams is going to want nothing to do with the
code if the testing requirement is abolished . The majority of hams
NOW wants nothing to do with it, and we haven't even gotten the
testing requirement out of the regulations yet.

I think the PCTAs know darn well that if the test goes, they're going
to have fewer and fewer people to beep with as time goes on. They
accuse the NCTAs - and hams who aren't interested in CW - of being
lazy, when in fact, it's the PCTAs who are too lazy to promote their
own favored activity within the hobby, and therefore need a government
regulation to shove it down people's throats for them instead.

I think they also realize that as fewer and fewer hams use CW, there
will be less of a need for subbands, and they will stand to lose turf
if and when the frequencies are refarmed...and I really think that
this is their greatest fear: that subbands will be taken out of the
regulations and put back into the hands of hams, where the issue
belongs anyway. Do we really need regulations of that nature? I don't
believe that we do. CW is already authorized on any frequency where a
ham's license permits him/her to operate. There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.

The code isn't the primary issue with many of the PCTAs - it's simply
a turf war, with the code test issue being used to obfuscate their
real agenda.

Electronics can clearly be taught without a code testing requirement. I'm
playing around with basic electronics, obviously without those code skills.

It occurs to me that, absent a code testing requirement, there's a
good possibility that the technical qualifications of the ham
community will go up, because any time that would have been spent
learning the code (under the old system) can now be spent learning
something about digital electronics - or some other topic that has
real-world application outside of the ARS.

However, I'm not building a basic CW rig because it has no widespread
application in a modern world.

This is something the PCTAs refuse to accept, Dwight.

When's the last time a state-of-the-art communications system was
designed that was based on the use of telegraphy?

Today's modern communications system are designed around digital
applications, and in fact an emphasis lately is on automated
operation. Even within the ARS, the standard for automated
store-and-forward transmission of messages and data is AX25, not CW.

I'm repairing an old SSB radio to learn more
about it, but that is clearly a minor project at the moment (my intent is to
build a simple SSB radio one day). Instead, I'm now mainly focused on
microcomputers, interfacing, programming, and robotics. That leaves little
time for pounding out messages with a code paddle.

I find it interesting to note that the holder of a Novice license, who
passed one and only one written test (prior to April 2000, when they
stopped issuing new Novice licenses, this was Element 2), has HF phone
privileges on ten meters. A Technician who took his tests on the same
day had to pass elements 2 AND 3a, and has no HF privileges at all,
unless he/she passes a CODE test - the results of which tell us
nothing at all about that person's qualifications to operate a PHONE
station on HF (or anywhere else for that matter).

Looking at it from the other side of the glass, the Novice is
considered qualified, on the basis of having passed a code test and
the easiest written test in existence at the time, to operate HF Phone
on ten meters - which when the band is open propagates even a signal
well below the 200 watts authorized to a Novice - on a worldwide
basis. But the same Novice who is considered qualified to work the
world on 10 meters, cannot work the guy down the street on the local
2m repeater because Novices have no 2m privileges.

Back to the Technician - based on that one written test (post-April
2000 Element 2), he/she is permitted to use any mode authorized to any
other U.S. licensed ham, be it a General, an Advanced, or an Extra.
But until that person passes a code test, he/she can only use those
modes on VHF/UHF. Which means that the Tech can run 9600 baud packet
on 440 with the bandwidth that comes with using that higher symbol
rate, yet he/she is not qualified to use 300 baud packet (with a much
narrower bandwidth) on 10 meters unless he/she passes a test
pertaining to a mode (CW) that has nothing at all to do with operating
packet on any frequency.

Now, what does the fact that these facts make perfect sense ONLY to
the PCTAs tell you about the PCTAs?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Well, considering how often you act like a small child in here, Leonard,
you're certainly not qualified for that role.

Go to bed, little one...it's past your bedtime.

Typical. Hey PUTZ: You are the singular "unifying force" in this
newsgroup. Utter and total disdain and distaste for your personna is
the one "policy" overwhelmingly shared and agreed upon by both the
NCTA and PCTA factions.

Congratulations PUTZ.

Ah, another "calm, rational, civilized" PCTA heard from... :-)

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh....tell 'im you'll get back to him when he
has something intelligent to say. I told Larry that
a couple of weeks ago and, except to tell him I
wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in meeting
him or most others in this newsgroup, I've not
posted a thing to him since. I just can't find the
"intelligent" part of his posts.

He does have the habit of trying to twist things when the discussion
doesn't go his way and I simply don't have the time for that nonsense. If he
doesn't want to discuss the issue seriously, he can discuss it with himself.

That's really not the point. I think both of you realize this. :-)

Roll's constant repetitions of old Maxims in here and the few personal
barbs he throws in are just his way of trolling for those to respond to in
the newsgroup. He seems to live by such "responses" which are little
more than cut and paste from five years ago.

Roll has a very strong sense of self...and considerable self-promotion
(in any other place it would be called "ego").

A good example of that is his self-promotion as a paragon of ethical and
moral worth of self-discipline and "motivation" on upgrading via 20 WPM
and achieving an extra class license. He loves rebuilding that marble
pedestal to stand on. It is as if all US radio amateurs should emulate
his self-admitted wonderfulness as the role model for all others.

None of it is a REAL argument for morsemanship. It is just self-praise.

Roll's basic arguments for the morse code test are just a very long-winded
version of "I had to do it so you have to do it!" Probably with a good dose
of "I'm so wonderful you should all be as good as me..."

:-)

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Regardless of one's stance on the code, reviewing the history of the FCC
shows that they are NOT necessarily concerned with what's best for the ARS.

That's not required under the FCC's charter from the US Congress.

"What is best for the ARS" is an extremely subjective (and thus
prejudicial) viewpoint.




If they were, BPL would never have gotten as far as it has.

In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes:

It's beyond obvious by now that his character is ALL flaw.

That's what we all like about DICK...his calm, rational, civilized approach
to discussion and debate...

:-)