your request
above could only be considered factitious. Therefore, I will treat it as
such.

Ah. Denial.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Obviously you have no HF receiving capability and likely just as much
interest,
and just choose to adopt the standard NCI mantra. An even cursury tuning
across
the lower end of any low HF band any evening will show to be 180
degrees out
of phase with reality.


well, I have an HF rig, many of my local ham friends have them. We do in
fact hear CW signals on the lower parts of the HF bands; I sometimes
participate and make contacts, recieving and transmitting CW.

It's a relative comparison here that matters; and it is as follows. A
growing
percentage of the HF spectrum is being used by VOICED contacts,
and a shrinking percentage is being used for CW. That is one of the
primary reasons that the band allocations were changed recently and
some of the lower CW/data subbands were shrunk and the balance
given to the upper portions being used by voice contacts.


You do know about phase relationships don't you?

DON'T YOU??

well, he's demonstrated it. You haven't.
Or, at least not an unbiased one anyway.


Therefore, code testing is not
essential to the Amateur Radio Service.

Exactly.

Quite an opinion you have there, Dwight. Too bad it's not accurate nor
anywhere near universally shared among other hams,

Yes. I'm afraid it is.
That's why there is a growing voice and ever strengthening push, year after
year, to eliminate the CW testing requirement.

You do listen to the knews, DON'T YOU?

Clint
KB5ZHT

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


kinda like PCTA's reasoning for keeping CW testing requirements.

Clint
KB5ZHT

Where did you get your information, Dwight? According to the ARRL (the
primary ARS organization in the US) -- CW is the second most popular mode
in
the ARS -- Just behind SSB.

And that's only *half* the truth. The *REST* of the story is that this is
not
a static relationship; the use of SSB is growing while that of CW is
declining,
as each year the number of prominently morse code users either change
over, quit operating ham radio or go silent key.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

But, but, but!!!! Larry's obviously got or had large boobs, and has
obviously worn a bra. Right?! He *has* hasn't he? Surely, for if not
he
would not be making value judgements on my callsign.
__________________________________________________ _______________

It took a while, but I have grown accustomed to your callsign, Kim.
And
it
wasn't necessary for me to wear a bra to do it. ;-)

Arnie -
KT4ST



Uh, Arnie? If you wore a bra, the only thing you'd get from me would be,
"What ya packin' there, big fella?" ;)

Am I the only one reminded of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer and
George's
father join forces to create a brassier for men? Kramer wanted to call it
the
"bro" and Mr. Costanza wanted to call it the "man-sierre". Or vice versa.

Classic show. Good times.

73 de Jim, N2EY

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Kim W5TIT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Well, Dwight, you just showed the exctent of your
knoweldge of the subject. NONE! Obviously you
have no HF receiving capability and likely just as
much interest, and just choose to adopt the standard
NCI mantra. An even cursury tuning across the lower
end of any low HF band any evening will show to be
180 degrees out of phase with reality.


To clarify, the dispute is about how much of a role code/CW plays within
the Amateur Radio Service today and whether the FCC has an incentive to
maintain testing for this mode. To decide that, we first have to look at the
number of people using code and what it is used for. As for the numbers,
even excluding the "no-code" Techs, I think most would agree that the
majority mainly use the voice modes and only rarely use code. Add in the
"no-code" Techs and it is fairly clear that most Ham operators don't use
code.

The next question is what code is used for. Clearly, code only plays a
very small role in emergency communications today (a key component of
Amateur Radio). Likewise, code is seldom used by the agencies we serve (Red
Cross, Civil Service, and so on). In each of these (agencies served and
emergency communications), voice is the dominate mode. That leaves only
recreation as the primary use of CW/code.

With these facts, we can now go back to my primary point - does the FCC
have any incentive to maintain testing for a mode that is mainly used for
recreation and not used by the majority of todays' ham operators? I think
the answer to that is fairly obvious.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:
Because so few use it, the mode now plays only a
relatively minor role within the Amateur Radio Service.

Huh???!!!

Therefore, code testing is not essential to the
Amateur Radio Service.

I disagree...because the aforementioned supporting
statement is entirely incorrect.


For clarification, read my response to Dick.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

And, once again, you fail to mention who or what is
benefited by it, if not the ARS. Please provide an answer,
or quite wasting our time with this illogical statement.


Larry, I know you are not so dumb as to not know how Morse Code/CW has fit
into the history of Amateur Radio and how Amateur Radio has fit into the
other radio services throughout that history. Knowing that, your request
above could only be considered factitious. Therefore, I will treat it as
such.

Dwight:

I wasn't being facetious, I was asking a question based on a logical
premise which you yourself raised. So, you either answer it, or your
original premise is insupportable. Which is it?

(snip) And, since everything I'm discussing here is related
ONLY to the Amateur Radio Service, that's the only group
of Morse/CW users who are being considered by me in any
of my postings. (snip)

Well, that may be what you're discussing, but I'm discussing Morse Code
testing - a discussion which, by it's very nature, cannot be limited to just
Amateur Radio.

OK, fine. Now, then, precisely which OTHER radio services currently
require Morse code testing???

However, if the discussion were limited to just Amateur
Radio, your arguments would have no more weight since most ham operators
today don't use code/cw on any routine or regular basis. There is little
reason to maintain testing for a mode that is seldom used by more than a
relatively small minority.

Hmmm. Funny how that "small minority" seems to come out of the
woodwork in vast quantities during CW contests, Field Day, or
whenever some rare DX pops up on the air!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Well, I'm glad I finally got your attention directed
toward reality. If the Morse code isn't relevant to
any communications service outside the ARS, then
the fact that the commercial and military services
have stopped using it isn't relevant or responsive
to the issue of code testing withing the ARS.
Therefore, by your own admission, the NCTA's
prime argument is just so much worthless rhetoric.


But, as you well know, the code testing requirement was originally
established exactly because code was once relevant to the military,
government, and commercial services outside Amateur Radio. Since that has
now changed, it is clearly time to question the need for a unique testing
requirement for this one operating mode.

Dwight:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply is unresponsive. If the
above were true, then the very second radio amateurs started using modes
other than CW, the code testing requirement should have been dropped,
for all the same reasons given by the NCTA today. However, it wasn't.
In fact, in the late '60's, over a half-century after the need for military and
commercial stations to be able to shoo-off "those damn hams" from
their frequencies, the Morse code testing requirement was increased
as part of the now lamented "Incentive Licensing" scheme. Incentive
Licensing was an ARRL initiative, and it was done to ensure that the
Morse/CW mode would continue to be used in spite of the increasing
popularity of SSB and digital modes. It was actually a very brilliant
plan, but was spoiled by the resentment caused by the lack of full
"grandfathering" of the existing Generals to the new Amateur Extra
class. If only that had been done, we may not be having this debate
today.

Since most ham operators today
don't use code on a regular basis, there is also little need within Amateur
Radio to maintain a testing requirement for this one operating mode.

During the last ARRL 10-Meter Contest, I worked over 160 QSO's on
10-meters, using only CW. This is on 10-meters, a band famous as a
repository for the 5 WPM Novice/Techs exercising the whole of their HF
phone privileges! During contests covering all HF bands, such as the
November Sweepstakes (CW), it is not possible to work all of the CW
stations participating. Well, at least not for me, with my minimal station
in a highly antenna-compromised apartment QTH. However, in spite
of my operating challenges, the CW mode provides endless potential
to make points. During the November SS (Phone) last year, my
club station (W3DOV) was also operating under "marginal" conditions
at the QTH of Mark, KE3UY. Using literally the same power and
antennas as I would at my home QTH, we worked a lot fewer stations
than we could have on CW. It's as simple as that. And, excluding
contests, the CW segments are very alive and full of stations all the
time, largely thanks to FISTS and the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper.

All
that has led to the efforts now being made to eliminate the Morse Code test
requirement.

The efforts being made to eliminate the Morse code test requirement
are motivated by one thing and one thing only: laziness. The laziness
born of a lack of desire to learn and gain reasonable proficiency in a
proven, useful communications skill. And, considering the nature of
the ARS, indulging that laziness would be an abomination.

The Morse/CW mode remains as a valuable, basic
communications tool within the ARS, and the code
testing requirement is current and essential to the
continued use of this mode. End of story. (snip)

But, as much as you'd like it to be, that is not the end of the story,
Larry. Because so few use it, the mode now plays only a relatively minor
role within the Amateur Radio Service.

That has been disproved over and over again…most recently, in my
last paragraph, above.

Therefore, code testing is not
essential to the Amateur Radio Service.

It most certainly is, if the ARS wishes to continue to develop radio
operators capable of exploiting the many benefits and advantages
of the Morse/CW mode.

Further, without outside factors
(the needs of the other services) to consider, the FCC itself has no
significant interest today in maintaining the "continued use of this mode"
within the Amateur Radio Service.

The FCC has stated repeatedly that whether or not it will have an
interesting in the "continued use of this mode" depends upon a
consensus of the amateur radio community itself. Therefore,
unfortunately, we will be at the mercy of the majority. Us PCTA's
may not like the outcome, but that is the risk one takes when living
in a democracy.

As far as the FCC is concerned, it is now
just one more operating mode among the many used within the Amateur Radio
Service. There is no sufficient argument to support the continued existence
of a code testing requirement. As such, the code testing requirement should
be eliminated.

As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic could then be applied to
testing for knowledge of any of the requirements for technical knowledge,
since radio amateurs no longer have the ability to design, build, and repair
state-of-the art communications gear unless they possess professional-
grade technical knowledge, skills, and facilities. And, since this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service, that is an unreasonable expectation. Therefore,
if code testing *is* eliminated, then we may as well also go to a simple
license application process, with, at most, an open-book test on rules and
regulations. That would then serve the needs of the dumbed-down
licensing process you would seem to prefer.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

On 22 Sep 2003 03:03:59 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:


Unfortunately, there is more evidence to support my "feeling" than there
is to support yours. With the exception of hams who were trained in
Morse code by the military or maritime/commercial radio services, I have
yet to meet an avid and active CW user who got that way except through
the code testing requirement. And, for what should have been 14 of the
best years of my ham radio career, I was one of the "objectors."

In my opinion, Larry, you aren't accounting for the fact that the
personality traits of various people differ widely. You yourself chose
to dump your objections. I chose to find another hobby instead, and so
for almost 30 years remained a radio hobbyist active in other
interests but was not part of amateur radio - I thoroughly enjoyed
SWL'ing, scanning, AM broadcast DX'ing, and didn't feel as if I was
missing out on anything by not having a ham ticket.

I also immersed myself in computers as a hobby. That led me eventually
to the Internet which, strangely enough, is what led me back to ham
radio. Vicious circle, that...but fodder for a discussion on an
entirely different topic.

What I'm trying to say here is, for every person who, like you,
decided to compromise your objections, there are who knows how many
others who felt that as a matter of principle they were not about to
waste their precious time learning what they felt was an anachronism,
and moved on to something else instead...a process which continues
today. Each such person represents a potential ham chased away from
the hobby by a wholly unnecessary licensing requirement. This is why
many view it as a hazing ritual. How many licensed drivers would be on
the road today if you had to buy a horse, learn to ride it, and be
tested on your equestrian skills in order to get behind the wheel of
the family bus? Probably very few, and in many cases the reasoning is
probably the same in both cases - i.e., they don't want to deal with a
lot of horse****.

So, as
you say, we can't prove anything now, but I'm not willing to bet that there
will be some sort of "epiphany" among former no-coders to go ahead
and learn the code and become CW operators when the testing
requirement is gone. It just ain't gonna happen!

Probably not, because they already have had the experience of having
been forced to learn the code in order to pass the test, and having
done so, are glad it's over with and don't care if they ever use it
again. They've passed the only code test they'll ever have to take as
long as they keep their licenses current, and are glad to have the
whole ordeal over with, permanently.

Again, no way to prove anything now one way or the other...but we'll
find out if and when the code test vanishes, and we see how many
people licensed without a code test learn the code voluntarily on
account of its merits as an operating mode, absent any lingering
resentment over the licensing requirement or the prospect of prolonged
beatings with the Wouff Hong hanging over their heads like the Sword
Of Damocles when they begin their participation in the hobby.

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 21 Sep 2003 06:28:53 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

If you have to MAKE it happen, then it isn't making it on it's own
merit.

Fine. Then let's get rid of any and all testing in schools at every
educational level. After all, all those tests only "force" students to
demonstrate academic achievement, don't they? That's "making"
an education happen, so we can't have that, can we?

We can, and we do, primarily because one is doomed to fail in life
without an education. You'll also note that one does not have to study
medicine and get an M.D. in order to graduate with a degree in, say,
business administration - primarily because a guy with an MBA isn't
expected to perform brain surgery. With respect to Amateur Radio,
nobody is forced to operate in CW once they're licensed, and one can
succeed in the ARS by using any one of a few dozen other modes we're
allowed to use, so forcing them to take a code test makes no sense.

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


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** 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 21 Sep 2003 08:25:52 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Now, then, how does the advocation of code testing in any way correlate
to bigotry, elitism, and/or discrimination against other Americans?

By steadfastly refusing to admit that code testing is a
government-subsidized life support system for an anachronism, and
insisting that code testing be retained, PCTAs are supporting
artificial barriers to entry into the hobby. I suspect that for many
PCTAs, and maybe even for most PCTAs, the motive for this lies not in
promoting the use of the mode, but in retaining a piece of the RF
spectrum for their own use at the exclusion of others who their no
longer exists a practical reason for keeping them out on the basis of
code proficiency.

Whether you or any of the other PCTAs care to realize it or not,
Larry, this attitude is THE reason why so many people in other facets
of hobby radio, while respecting the abilities of hams with respect to
our knowledge about radio, tend to consider us a bunch of stuffed
shirts personally. Outside the ARS, the code test is perceived (quite
correctly) as archaic and pointless except as a hazing ritual that
exists solely as a means of keeping others from joining our exclusive
little club - which is elitism by definition - and then when you get
people like WA8ULX using derogatory terms like "CBplussers" to
describe fellow hams who don't share the same interests in radio as he
does, that, Larry, is bigotry...and ULX is far from being the only ham
in here who is guilty of it.

The
code tests, both past and present, have proved to be achievable by people
from all walks of life, including those with communicative disabilities up to
and including total deafness. Try as I may, I can't find anything patently
"discriminatory" there. So, take a shot of setting me straight -- how is
code testing "discrimination?"

I've already shown bigotry and elitism. I'm not going to bother
getting into discriminatory - two out of three is bad enough. I'll
give you a hint, though...a Technician who passes the written test is
not qualified to operate on HF phone, but a Tech who passes a code
test *is* qualified to operate on HF phone? That makes about as much
sense as some of the junk coming into this NG from the crossposters
over in the rec.radio.cb newsgroup. Whether or not the Tech is
qualified to operate on HF phone - or PSK31 or SSTV or any other mode
besides CW - has nothing to do with whether he or she can copy Morse.
You really mean to tell me that you guys who bill yourselves as
superior to most other hams don't understand how stupid that looks to
those outside your steadily shrinking clique of PCTAs? And you can't
see the harm it does to the image of amateur radio? C'mon, guys, get
your heads out of the sand, will ya? It's 2003, not 1936.

I've discussed that contradiction with Larry before. He does seem to
exclude code testing from his conservative views opposing excessive
government regulation.

Correct, because I don't consider it to be "excessive" government
regulation.

If it is unnecessary, it is excessive.

I believe the government has a valid need to regulate certain
things, especially valuable and finite resources such as the RF
spectrum.

Last time I checked, FCC still does regulate the RF spectrum.

Therefore, I believe that when license is to be given for the
PRIVILEGE of free use of RF spectrum, which is worth potentially
billions of dollars should it be converted to commerce in the commercial
utility communications and broadcasting industries, certain government
regulation makes good sense.

Which we have - in the case of the ARS, it's in Part 97. Other radio
services are regulated by other parts of FCC regulations. Dropping
code testing will not render the ARS unregulated - it will merely
remove an archaic regulation that not only no longer serves any
purpose vital to the well-being of the ARS, but actually is no longer
in keeping with the basis and purpose of the ARS - a fact which FCC
conceded in its R&O on the last round of restructuring. One would
think that if an agency of the federal beaurocracy can be made to
aquiesce to this fact, a few thousand regular citizens ought to be
able to understand it to, yet the PCTAs continue to cling to an
obvious (to everyone else) anachronism as if it were the only
worthwhile pursuit in all of amateur radio. That puts PCTAs in a
distinct minority, because the rest of the world understands that it
is anything but a worthwhile pursuit as far as it relates to the state
of communications technology in the 22nd century world.

If Morse Code has real value, it should be able to
survive in as close to a free market environment as possible.

Well, that's a wonderful concept, Dwight, but history has shown that
it doesn't work when put to the actual test.

That alone should tell you something...like maybe that the rest of the
world isn't operating under the same illusions as most PCTAs seem to
be suffering from.

The No-code Technician
experiment only served to bring us a couple hundred grand of new
hams who self-limited their amateur radio experience to the 2-meter
repeaters.

I disagree - the 2-meter band is merely the most popular among those
bands on which their licenses grant them operating privileges. That,
along with the widespread availability of equipment for operating
there, makes it a matter of course that most of them are going to show
up there first.

Naturally, they all want the freedom to use HF phone, but
that still (for now) requires that they learn the Morse code and pass
a test, albeit at a mere 5 WPM. The fact that they are not doing so in
any great numbers indicates that the Morse code does not have any
particular drawing power based on it's own "merits," as the NCTA
would infer.

Again, that ought to tell you something. It does tell me something. It
tells me that either radio hobbyists in general are smarter than PCTAs
seem to think they are, or that perhaps the PCTAs aren't as smart as
they think they are.

To put it another way, just because a minority of hams who happen to
be PCTAs have deluded themselves into thinking that an archaic testing
requirement of an anachronistic operating mode is of continued benefit
to the ARS or to the science of radio, does not necessarily mean that
the rest of us are going to fall victim to the same fallacy. The fact
that so many people aren't buying into this supposition indicates to
me that perhaps NCTAs - and hams who are interested in ham radio but
not in CW operation - aren't dumbing down the hobby, as the PVTAs
would infer. Perhaps the dumbing down is coming from the other side of
the CW fence.

And now that there is a very bold dotted line drawn
around even this meager requirement, the incentive has all but
fully evaporated.

That incentive evaporated sometime around 1970. That's when the state
of communications technology truly made CW obsolete for most purposes.
It remains a viable communications mode, but it is far from being the
most efficient, it is far from being the easiest to learn and use, and
it is long past time to do away with the code testing requirement.
It's doing nothing but keeping people out of the ARS for no good
reason other than that the PCTAs get to hold onto their "turf" on the
bands for a little while longer. Anyone who thinks differently,
mention the refarming of the Novice bands to any PCTA. Then get ready
to start peeling PCTAs off the ceiling.

I think it has
that value and can survive just fine without a regulation mandating testing.

And I don't -- and have seen conclusive proof that it won't.

Which leaves two reasons for continuing to have a code test, and both
of them are rooted in elitism and bigotry.

Funny...part of the Basis & Purpose mentions fostering international
goodwill - yet we have so many people in the ARS who can't even be
bothered to foster goodwill on our side of the ponds. They'd prefer to
cling like koala bears to their own little slices of the RF spectrum
and the rest of us be damned. Sickening.

First of all, FCC Commissioners are political appointees, not necessarily
technical experts. They can, and do, depend on the advice of professional
technical experts, who actually formulate and subsequently make
recommendations on regulatory matters. The Commissioners mainly
ensure that these regulations meet the needs of their respective
political constituencies, often with numerous conflicting interests battering
them from every angle.

None of which has anything to do with the usefulness of code testing,
so (as they say down at the barber shop), "Next!"

Second, it is not my desire to "undermine" anyone. I don't view the
Morse code testing requirements, past or present, to be in any way
unachievable or otherwise discriminatory.

Ostrich...head...sand.

In fact, I view them as being
directly in support of the concept of learning and maintaining the use of
a highly useful communications skill, therefore, the requirement has,
IMHO, intrinsic merit.

"Highly" useful? At this stage of the game, probably half the licensed
hams in the world have no interest in using CW to communicate and
wouldn't know how to if they did.

This does not "benefit me more" than anyone
else in the ARS.

Sure it does. You've got yours, so nuts to everybody else. You'll
fight to retain that archaic, anachronistic testing requirement even
if it means there will eventually be thirty licensed hams left in the
country, all crowded onto a 2 kilohertz slice of spectrum somewhere
down around 150 kc and the only mode permitted is CW.

Moreover, I am definitely not squelching anyone with
different views. This newsgroup is adequate evidence of that.

I think it's more like, this NG is evidence of the fact that you
*can't* squelch anyone with a differing viewpoint, even if you wish
you could. You can't do it here, and you can't do it during FCC
comment periods. That's the only reason we aren't still wasting
people's time with 13wpm and 20wpm code tests. Eventually, the 5wpm
test willhead down the same road. It will be interesting to see how
many PCTAs will stick around ande continue to be VEs and elmers and
active hams and work for the good of the ARS, and how many will take
their ball and go home.

You seem dumb and dumberer to the fact that every other radio
service (except a small part of maritime radio) in the USA has either
DROPPED morse code (snip)

Actually, as you may know, even the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) voted in 1998 to eliminate Morse Code. The Coast Guard itself dropped
code in 1995. As a result of these two events, the Coast Guard now urges
commercial vessels not to use code since CG personnel, and an increasing
number of radio operators in the maritime service, may no longer have the
skills necessary to communicate using that system. The UN-chartered IMO is
responsible for defining and regulating international maritime
telecommunications. It's positions are adopted by the ITU.

All of this is really swell, Dwight, and trust me, if my dinghy were to spring
a leak in the middle of a busy shipping lane, the last thing I would do is
break out my J-38 and ask the next passing Liberian tanker to swing by
my position and fish me out of the drink. However, I would have my
marine HF and VHF radios powered up, and I'd have the mic in hand,
screaming like bloody havoc! However, this discussion is about the
AMATEUR Radio Service. Can you PUHLEEEZE, just for once, get that
concept thru your Kevlar skull? Your lack of situational awareness, while
accusing me of the same, is getting to be quite frustrating.

Larry, he *was* discussing the ARS. He pointed out - quite correctly I
might add - that the ARS is the only place in the RF spectrum where an
archaic operating mode is widely believed by a significant number of
the operators therein to reign supreme despite overwhelming evidence
to the contrary. Ham radio organizations widely lament the lack of
growth in the hobby, ham radio clubs have a fraction of their former
membership counts, ham radio magazines print articles and reader
letters lamenting the lack of activity even on the 2m repeaters, and
yet we have people who continue to support a testing requirement that
is probably more responsible for that than any other single factor.

The rest of the world is in the 22nd century. The ARS is still mired
in the 19th century. You once asked something to the effect of, where
are all the hams who were going to give us high-speed data networks
over radio once the no-code licenses came out?

The answer is, we didn't get the no-code licenses unti it was 15 years
too late, by which time those potential hams were already working for
companies like Microsoft and couldn't have cared less any more about
ham radio. That's the way it is - and if the PCTAs have their way,
that's the way it'll stay. Unfortunately, something tells me that's
just fine with the PCTAs, who all too often seem to me as if they have
their own selfish interests in mind rather than the best interests of
the ARS.

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 Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:30:01 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


The Amateur Radio Service is not
(or should not be) defined solely by CW/code, so that one mode does not
solely define what is in the best interest of the ARS. However, as it is,
testing of that one mode does continue to define the ARS. I personally think
it is time for that to change.

It's been time for that to change for the last 30 years.

Better late than never, I guess. sigh

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 23 Sep 2003 05:34:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply is unresponsive. If the
above were true, then the very second radio amateurs started using modes
other than CW, the code testing requirement should have been dropped,
for all the same reasons given by the NCTA today. However, it wasn't.
In fact, in the late '60's, over a half-century after the need for military and
commercial stations to be able to shoo-off "those damn hams" from
their frequencies, the Morse code testing requirement was increased
as part of the now lamented "Incentive Licensing" scheme.

Obviously a mistake, then...so what is your rationale for compounding
that mistake by continuing to perpetuate it any longer?

Incentive
Licensing was an ARRL initiative, and it was done to ensure that the
Morse/CW mode would continue to be used in spite of the increasing
popularity of SSB and digital modes.

Another obvious mistake...let's deliberately restrict progress in the
ARS by clinging to archaic technology like koala bears. Real astute
leadership from the League there...NOT!

It was actually a very brilliant plan,

Actually it was a very stupid plan, as shown by the test of time.

but was spoiled by the resentment caused by the lack of full
"grandfathering" of the existing Generals to the new Amateur Extra
class. If only that had been done, we may not be having this debate
today.


To say nothing of the resentment caused by deciding in the face of
rapidly advancing communications technology to remain rooted in an
anachronism left over from before the dawn of the 20th century. If
only that had not been done, the brightest young technological minds
of two full generations might have been drawn to amateur radio instead
of computers and the landline BBSes and finally the Internet, and
there would be no need for this silly debate because the ARS would
have stayed on the cutting ege of communications technology instead of
having made the decision to allow itself to be left in the dust.

During the last ARRL 10-Meter Contest, I worked over 160 QSO's on
10-meters, using only CW. This is on 10-meters, a band famous as a
repository for the 5 WPM Novice/Techs exercising the whole of their HF
phone privileges! During contests covering all HF bands, such as the
November Sweepstakes (CW), it is not possible to work all of the CW
stations participating.

It is not possible to work all of the phone stations participating in
the phone portion of Sweepstakes, either. The question is, did you
work a Clean Sweep?

Well, at least not for me, with my minimal station
in a highly antenna-compromised apartment QTH. However, in spite
of my operating challenges, the CW mode provides endless potential
to make points. During the November SS (Phone) last year, my
club station (W3DOV) was also operating under "marginal" conditions
at the QTH of Mark, KE3UY. Using literally the same power and
antennas as I would at my home QTH, we worked a lot fewer stations
than we could have on CW.

That's what you get for wasting all that time pounding brass instead
of learning some phone operating skills. :-)

It's as simple as that. And, excluding
contests, the CW segments are very alive and full of stations all the
time, largely thanks to FISTS and the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper.

Excluding contests, the phone segments are also very alive and full of
stations - no thanks to FISTS or to the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper....and no thanks to the code test, for that matter.


The efforts being made to eliminate the Morse code test requirement
are motivated by one thing and one thing only:

Common sense.

laziness.

Unfortunately, common sense is not necessarily very common.

The laziness
born of a lack of desire to learn and gain reasonable proficiency in a
proven, useful communications skill.

Being a good phone contest operator requires developing some skills
too, Larry. You guys might have done better in Sweepstakes Phone if
you hadn't been to lazy to gain reasonable proficiency in this proven,
useful communications skill - which is even more widely used than CW,
and therefore makes even more sense to take the time to learn.

But, like I said, common sense is... sigh

And, considering the nature of
the ARS, indulging that laziness would be an abomination.

The dicstionary on the shelf here doesn't list "abomination" but it
does define "abominable" as follows:

1. hateful; disgusting: Leprosy is an abominable disease.
2. very unpleasant: abominable manners.

Pretty much sounds like the way that many of us feel about code
testing, and it's probably how some people feel about the code itself,
but the fact remains that this pointless adherence to an anachronism
is an aberration that exists only in the ARS, and nowhere else. Small
wonder that we're the subject of ridicule elsewhere in the radio hobby
community because of it.

Therefore, code testing is not
essential to the Amateur Radio Service.

It most certainly is, if the ARS wishes to continue to develop radio
operators capable of exploiting the many benefits and advantages
of the Morse/CW mode.

And while we're developing radio operators who have proficiency with
an operating mode that nobody but hams uses, we're failing to devlop
operators proficient in the skills that might actually be useful out
there in the real world. Yet, old-timers lament the fact that these
days, having a ham license won't get you a job bagging groceries, let
alone any meaningful work in a communications-related field. Small
wonder, when the ARS itself decided to stay rooted in 19th century
technology, eh?

The FCC has stated repeatedly that whether or not it will have an
interesting in the "continued use of this mode" depends upon a
consensus of the amateur radio community itself.

Half of which, as no-code Techs, has already voted, by deciding not to
join the PCTAs in deluding themselves about the usefulness of an
anachronistic, 19th-century operating mode.

Therefore,
unfortunately, we will be at the mercy of the majority. Us PCTA's
may not like the outcome, but that is the risk one takes when living
in a democracy.

Given time, the results may prove better in the long run for the ARS.
Will you still think it unfortunate if this happens?

As far as the FCC is concerned, it is now
just one more operating mode among the many used within the Amateur Radio
Service. There is no sufficient argument to support the continued existence
of a code testing requirement. As such, the code testing requirement should
be eliminated.

As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic could then be applied to
testing for knowledge of any of the requirements for technical knowledge,
since radio amateurs no longer have the ability to design, build, and repair
state-of-the art communications gear unless they possess professional-
grade technical knowledge, skills, and facilities.

Interesting, isn't it, to note that this separation between
professional-grade technical knowledge and that available in the ARS
started shortly after the ARS decided to remain in the Dark Ages while
the rest of the world took off on the Technology Boom. We stayed in
the Morse age while the rest of the world entered the Information Age.
Yeah, incentive licensing was a great idea. Personally, I'd rank it
right up there with sending troops to Vietnam.

And, since this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Of course it is! Now, an example of a *reasonable* expectation would
be to expect proficiency in a method of communications that is about
150 years old and that nobody else uses anymore. That *really*
encourages people to become part of the ARS and be a part of the
supposed advancement of the radio art that the Basis & Purpose portion
of Part 97 says we're supposed to be all about, doesn't it?

Therefore,
if code testing *is* eliminated, then we may as well also go to a simple
license application process, with, at most, an open-book test on rules and
regulations. That would then serve the needs of the dumbed-down
licensing process you would seem to prefer.

Come on, Larry. There are guys who can do 30, 40, or 50 wpm that can't
even *program* a modern transciever, let alone fix the damned thing
when one of the surface-mount components fails that is too small for
many of us to even *see* let alone solder one onto a PC board. These
rigs have been designed so the owners *can't* fix them, so that they
have to be dragged back to the dealer or shipped to the factory for
service, with appropriate outlay of cash since naturally the component
isn't going to fail until, oh, I dunno, about 6.2 seconds after the
warranty expires. Chances are that the "factory service" involves
removing the board the failed component is on and replacing it with a
brand new one because it isn't cost--effective to do component-level
repairs on mass-produced PC boards.

Following this, the rig gets packed up and shipped back to its owner,
who opens the package, curses a blue streak when he sees the bottom
line on the invoice, makes a New Years' Resolution to become a boat
anchor fanatic, then unpacks the rig and puts it back on the desk in
his shack. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing the unpacking can
copy at 50 wpm or doesn't know a dit from a dah, the result is going
to be the same because that's how the manufacturer designed it. If you
must blame somebody for that, Larry, then I respectfully suggest that
you place the blame not on the NCTAs, but on the design engineers at
YaeComWood, where it rightfully belongs - and remember that some of
them are hams, who apparently have professional-grade technical
knowledge, skills, and facilities, whether they ever passed a code
test or not.

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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...

Dee,

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Arnie -
KT4ST


He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments and is
incapable of debating in any logical fashion. He is known to go onto long
tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters. Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because of it though there are a couple of people who continue
to wrangle with him.

I never see his posts anymore.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

Let's see... If I were to set up a bogus hotmail or AOL account, pick out
a
callsign from the callbook and then set up to access EchoLink on my
computer
and skip around the different systems, playing "Gangsta Rap" and golden
XXX-rated oldies by the "Fugs", and FBI recordings of rabbits being
slaughtered over distant EchoLink repeaters - just for fun - would I be
breaking any laws?

Remember that I would be accessing over the Internet, using a call I
picked
from a list, maybe even an inactive one. No radio involved, at least none
of
mine.

Who would be responsible for the transmissions on those distant repeaters?

Just what law or regulation would make it illegal to access EchoLink with
a
bogus callsign? I don't think there is one.

Should I cross-post this question to the newsgroups frequented by CB'ers,
Freebanders, FRS folk, etc? If not - Why not?

Charles Brabham, N5PVL



Most likely the control op of the repeater would be held accountable. Let's
not get them in trouble or force them to close down their repeaters.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

Actually, for the reasons already stated, I think they are concerned with
what is in the best interest of the ARS. The Amateur Radio Service is not
(or should not be) defined solely by CW/code, so that one mode does not
solely define what is in the best interest of the ARS. However, as it is,
testing of that one mode does continue to define the ARS. I personally
think
it is time for that to change.


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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote ...

He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments and
is incapable of debating in any logical fashion. He is known to go onto
long tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters. Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because of it though there are a couple of people who continue
to wrangle with him. I never see his posts anymore.
__________________________________________________ ______________

And as of today, it's back to the KF with him. Maybe this time for two
years :-))

Arnie -
KT4ST

He does that to distract from the fact that he has no valid arguments

no, arguments that you cannot counter logically, leading to just the
same old bleeding heart crying tactics.

and is
incapable of debating in any logical fashion.

better check the man in the mirror.


He is known to go onto long
tangents leading to incredible non-sequiters.

if that's how you care to characterize logical debate;
you know, presenting an idea and then following
up with factual evidence to support it.


Most of us have long ago
killfiled him because .....

...... because you can't handle anybody posing
a differing opinion to the sacred, holy doctrine
you refuse to let go of regarding morse code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Robert" wrote in message


That has nothing to do with amateur radio or a person's position thereof.
I
did exactly the same thing wth my kids.

Kim W5TIT



Kim, the PCTA crowd has proven itself, above and beyond all
other descriptions, nothing short of totally hypocritical.

When I present evidence and facts to support the NCTA crowd's
ideas, they claim that they are all spurious and non-applicable
conclusions.

Then, in the same breath, they attempt to use such a condescending
line of thought... just like Len pointed out, they just showed that
they think of those who do not care to have morse code training
crammed down thier throats as "children".

Clint
KB5ZHT

My point was that in all activities, the already experienced people set
the
standards.

No WONDER you are so frustrated. Do you REALLY believe that,
in society today, that those who are the most veteran with the most
experience in a field REALLY set the standards? Colleges and
instutitions of higher learning are filled to the BRIN with
tenured professors that have little or no experience in the world outside
of the campus they teach on; politicians often hold thier offices for
decades without ever having had a real job (bill clinton).

It's a good concept in utopia, but in the real world, such is rarely
ever the case. Especially in a democracy where people are
elected into office (representatives) or appointed to offices
by those elected (supreme court justices).

I doubt very seriously anybody outside of the half-dozen
PCTA's that are herding together with you in this debate
see this line of thinking as anything more than condescending
and in fact makes you appear quite elitist. A word to the wise;
elitists are very rarely ever given the respect that they feel
they deserve- on the contrary, they usually tend to start
to arouse great levels of contempt and resentment with the
very people they feel they are trying to "help", for a lack
of a better word.

This is why the NCTA underlieing beliefs are catching on
so quickly and gaining steam.


So far polls of hams who have passed
code, i.e. the experienced, have a majority favoring it.


(1) Um, "duh"? I had to do it so everybody should! ? !
(2) I passed a code test and I do NOT favor continueing
code testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Dwight:

Well, I'm glad I finally got your attention directed toward reality. If the
Morse code isn't relevant to any communications service outside the
ARS, then the fact that the commercial and military services have
stopped using it isn't relevant or responsive to the issue of code testing
withing the ARS.

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!

The Morse/CW mode remains as a valuable, basic communications
tool within the ARS, and the code testing requirement is current and
essential to the continued use of this mode. End of story.

Hmmm...

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

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?

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.

73 de Larry, K3LT

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.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:

Gotta hand it to you, Dwight. Not everyone
can take few wild statements, mold them into
assumptions, then in the same paragraph,
change it all into "facts". But you manage that
with the ease of someone who writes bafflegab
for the Guv'mint.


What do you expect, Dick? After all, I worked for the government for
several decades. :)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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


Let me put it another way. I think the FCC is concerned about the best
interests of the ARS, within the confines of reality. We have to remember
the ARS is not the only pot on the stove - the FCC deals with many other
services and has to balance the needs of each service against the others
(and that includes the ARS). That means we're not always going to exactly
what we want, exactly when and how we want it. But that certainly doesn't
mean the FCC is not concerned with the best interests of the ARS or, as some
have suggested, has an agenda against it. We have a massive amount of
frequencies to play with. We have more modes to play with than most radio
services. We have more freedoms (to build or modify out own equipment and so
on) than most radio services. When you look at the whole picture, it's
fairly hard to complain too much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply
is unresponsive. (snip)


Well, Larry, that reply is all you're going to get because that reply is
the only truthful response to the issues you raised.


It most certainly is, if the ARS wishes to continue to
develop radio operators capable of exploiting the
many benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW
mode. (snip)


And why would the ARS wish to continue to specifically develop radio
operators capable of using code? What benefit does it offer? 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)? How are the
goals and purposes of the ARS served by continued skill testing of this one
operating mode? How will this (code skill testing) help to keep the ARS
abreast of modern technology, insuring our continued value to others? How
will this help move the ARS into the future (where we should be mainly
focused)?


(snip) As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic
could then be applied to (snip)


Already addressed in my response to N2EY.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes:
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!


No, Larry, he didn't say that. You misquoted him. He said, "...nobody ELSE
uses CW..."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OIC. So, you can't answer the question, then.


No, I've already answered the question and don't intend to waste time
doing so again. If your memory is really that bad, do a Google search for
our past discussion about this.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...

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.

How are the
goals and purposes of the ARS served by continued skill testing of this one
operating mode?

Introduces new hams to a mode with the advantages cited, just as
theory testing introduces new hams to radio technology.

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.

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.

Dwight, how many hams do you know who have designed and built (from
scratch) entire amateur radio stations? And who use them on a regular
basis - in 2003? (Besides me, that is). I'm not talking kits, either,
(my K2 doesn't count) nor accessories, but actual transceivers and
such.

Do you think a kid with a sodder arn is gonna build an a 2 meter HT or
a PSK-31 station as a first project?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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 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 ,
(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 , "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...

:-)