"Dick Carroll" wrote:

And by your logic, if it qualifies for the term, a
marksman who practices on a target range weekly is
no better qualified as a marksman than someone who
has never picked up a weapon because the 'someone'
has no interest in shooting. Lame.


Logic is not your strong point, Dick. You're talking about two people's
qualifications as a marksman. If Jim had said "more experienced" or "more
qualified" in Morse Code (as you talked about qualified as a marksman),
there would be no dispute. But, with that interpreted as saying a radio
amateur with code skills is "more experienced" and "more qualified" than one
without code skills, there is a conflict - it's simply not true. If it were
true, a brand new ham who passed a code test yesterday would be "more
experienced" than someone without code skills who has been a ham for ten
years.

[See why I disputed your "all things being equal" premise, Jim? Few are
even going to notice it.]


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

That's where I first learned about the morse code.
I had to learn it to get a badge; upon learning it, I
recieved a badge of achievement for having done
so. (snip)


I learned it as a Boy Scout also. However, in my case, that was a very
long time ago (when the Empire State building was the largest building in
New York - mentioned only because our troop when there during the New York
World's Fair in the early 60's).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the
regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely
NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/
service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part
in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition,
and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well,
the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory
purpose." (snip)


As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is
that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code
(culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition), that code is
not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so on.


(snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip)


It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing more
and nothing less.


Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the
stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently
motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.


I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code.
Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?"


Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who
said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient
for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I
address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?


Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to
install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In fact,
I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat
hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime soon.
Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of
many who don't give a hoot about having requirements
that make sense...they only want requirements which,
by their measure, constitute a "show of effort" on the
part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't
any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose.


Haven't see you in here lately, Bill. Have you been hiding out or did I
just miss your messages? Anyway, that's the point I'm trying to make. While
Morse Code may be the greatest operating mode to ever come along, a testing
requirement for it is just not necessary today. As such, that testing
requirement should go.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

Some claim that Morse Code testing is at odds with
the purpose of the amateur radio service as a
fundamentally technical service. But in the practical
experience of thousands of amateurs, the opposite
is true. (snip)


I've never made such a claim, so have no response to any counter-claim.


Skill in Morse Code, even at a very basic level, permits
amateurs to use radio equipment ranging from very simple
to highly advanced designs, and technologies of almost
any vintage. (snip)


Skill in Morse Code is certainly not unique in that ability, Jim. In fact,
almost any knowledge of radio would allow that.


Morse Code skill encourages amateurs to actually build
their own radio equipment by offering an easy first step,
and a growth path that leads to almost any usable
technology. (snip)


With almost every commercial radio today equipped to transmit code, why
would that be true? Few today, even those with an interest in code, are
building their own equipment. Instead, most are using the same type of
equipment I've purchased.


I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home
construction, having built my first amateur station at
age 13. (snip)


How many 13 year old kids today, with or without a ham license, with or
without code skills, are building their own radio equipment today?


The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician
class license has not resulted in a technical revolution in
amateur radio from newly-licensed "technically qualified"
amateurs. (snip)


I didn't know the Technician license was supposed to lead to a technical
revolution in anything, Jim. Instead, I thought they were just supposed to
participate in the same activities most other Amateur Radio operators are
participating in. Why the unique expectation for Technician license holders
alone?


Instead, the continued progress in amateur technical efforts
continues to be mostly the result of work done by
experienced amateurs, even though the Technician class
license has not had a code test for more than 12 years.


Which "amateur technical efforts" are you referring to, Jim? I must have
missed something because I haven't seen much technical efforts from ANY of
the operators I've met over the last few years, regardless of license class.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote

You may now proceed to thank me for finally clearing this up.


Thank you.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

One of the principles that makes up the Basis And Purpose of the
ARS is "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

" trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

You have to kidding, most of the New Hams have no Idea what it is to be
trained technicians or electronic experts. Nor will they ever be such. If your
trusting the writtens to prove the above statments, then no wonder you done
have a CLUE.

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"N2EY" wrote:

Here's one answer:

How many hams do you know who have designed,
built and operate homebrew stations? Not kits, not
partly home-made, not with homebrew accessories,
but 100% built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers,
transmitters, transceivers, antennas, power supplies,
etc.?

One of the oft-repeated claims has been that the
code tests kept out "technically inclined" individuals.
At least one NCTA (Vshah101) has claimed that
"no self-respecting EE would use CW". Etc.

(snip) If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see a
lot more homebrew HF stations?



Lets face it, homebrewing just isn't very popular today, in any license
class. Part of that is due to changing radio technology. It's fairly hard to
homebrew a radio today capable of competing with even the most basic
commercial product. Most are simply choosing to buy rather than build.

Might be the company you keep Dwight! 8^) Unless you are counting only
the building of the transciever itself, homebrewing is alive and well. I
make all the parts of my shack that I can, and know many hams that do
likewise. lots of cool stuff to build. Interfaces, anps, all sorts of
monitoring and test equipment, and more.

But its true, there aren't that many people building the rigs themselves.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 30 Sep 2003 15:12:12 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

by that logic, most of the General and Extra written exams are also
"government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or
"a welfare program".

You've been dangling the above for a few days now.

A few years, actually.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I didn't expect you to. But it's still true.

One of the principles that makes up the Basis And Purpose of the
ARS is "Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio
service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

That's right. Does passing the General or Extra written exam make someone an
electronics expert?

Do you know any hams who, upon passing the General and/or Extra exams, suddenly
decided to start building their equipment instead of buying it?

The design of modern communications equipment is based on digital
electronics.

Partly. There's also a lot of analog stuff in there.

Learning about digital electronics, therefore, is in
keeping with the Basis And Purpose.

Of course.

But why *must* hams be tested on digital electronics beyond the level of the
Tech exam? Is the digital electronics used in HF/MF amateur radio equipment
somehow different from the digital electronics used in VHF/UHF amateur radio
equipment?

Why must all that theory stuff be forced down prospective HF hams' throats
whether they are interested in it or not?

There's nothing in the Basis And Purpose about telegraphy.

Sure there is - it's under "trained operators".

There's nothing in the "Basis And Purpose about digital electronics, either.

FCC has already allowed that "because the amateur service is
fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code
proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."

(Both quotes above are from FCC's report & order on the last round of
restructuring in the ARS)

This is the same FCC that thinks BPL is a good idea, remember. And the same FCC
that will probably take 2 years to drop Element 1.

And the same FCC that radically reduced the written tests in that same
restructuring.

Here's proof of my argument about the content of the writtens:

A newcomer can get a Tech license by passing the current 35 question Element 2.
That license permits the new ham to use any authorized mode on any authorized
amateur frequency above 30 MHz. Every amateur HF/MF mode is also allowed on
VHF/UHF, and the power limits are the same. So FCC obviously thinks that the 35
question Tech test is a valid indicator of what a ham needs to know to
design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur station on VHF/UHF.

But even after the code test is passed, a new ham has to pass more written
tests to get more than 'Novice' privileges on HF/MF. Of course the General and
Extra writtens contain some "necessary" propagation, regulatory and safety
stuff that is not in the Tech test. But the rest is stuff that is not
absolutely necessary to design/build/repair/align and operate any amateur
station on HF/MF.

Add to this the fact that the only difference in operating privileges between a
General class ham and an Extra is a few bits of spectrum on 4 of the 9 HF/MF
bands, and it becomes very clear that most of the General and Extra written
exams are also "government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism"
and/or "a welfare program".

The situation is made even clearer by the emergence of rigs that cover both HF
and VHF/UHF. A Tech can buy, repair, align, and operate, say, an FT-897. Why is
said Tech qualified to use its full capabilities on 2 meters but not on 20
meters?

Now you might say that the tests "encourage" hams to become more "technical".
Have you ever observed that effect on hams who were not inclined to be
"technical" before they took the General and Extra class writtens?

Which activity is more prevalent in amateur radio today: Hams operating CW, or
hams designing and building their own radio equipment from scratch?

Why must there be a test for all that stuff if it's not necessary to the safe
and legal operation of an amateur radio station? How many doctors, lawyers, and
other people who would be great hams are we keeping out because they are not
interested in all that technical stuff? (We could sure use more hams who are
lawyers to help fight CC&Rs and BPL!)

Except for some extremely basic stuff on regulations and safety, *everything*
in the tests is the result of somebody's opinion.

An oft-repeated argument against the code test is that code operation is no
longer absolutely necessary for any operation, so there's no absolute need to
test for it. Apply the same logic to the writtens, and a lot of what's in them
has to go as well. It's an inescapable logical conclusion.

Clint has subsequently elaborated on his comment, citing government
subsidizing of the agricultural industry as one example, demonstrating
that this is in fact what he had in mind as well.

What major industry in this country is *not* subsidized in some way?

Um, well, there's the porn industry, I suppose..

Good point!

.but other than that,
you're right, there's a lot of subsidizing going on. However, that
doesn't mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, wants the
government to select my recreational activities for me on my behalf.
I'll make my own choices, thank you.

Your recreational choices are being subsidized and chosen for you as well.

If you like hiking and camping as recreational activities, there's a whole
system of parks, forests and wilderness areas, set aside by the government, for
those activities. But if you want to be a lumberjack for a recreational
activity, you cannot cut down trees in those areas. You have to go elsewhere,
almost always to private property.

Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the
manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test,
how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands?

Reallocate them as special digital experimental subband. Allow any
documented digital mode that will fit in the subbands to be used
there. Including digital voice, image, and yes, Morse Code/CW. No
arbitrary limits on occupied bandwidth or symbol rate as long as the
signal fits inside.

If somebody wants to run "PSK-3100" and they can document it for FCC,
fine, let 'em have at it.

I don't agree with unlimited signal bandwidths on HF - that means one
guy trying out some ultrawide digital mode wipes out the whole subband
and nobody else can experiment until he's through playing around.

That's why we have the subbands.

Not
just locally, but if the band is open, the subband's wiped out over a
significant portion of the planet.

The same is true in part for any mode.

But if it really bothers you that much, then perhaps the rule could be "any
mode less than X kHz wide" where X is, say, 5 or 10 kHz rather than the entire
subband.

I could agree with this on the microwave bands, though, where the
signals don't travel as far and there are far fewer users in line to
use the spectrum that is available.

DSSS near-far problem comes to mind.

Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those
four little slots.

I definitely agree with that.

I'd say they should have at least half of the General CW/data subbands.

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the
regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely
NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/
service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part
in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition,
and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well,
the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory
purpose." (snip)


As you know, that's only one part of the "battle cry," Bert. The rest is
that about half the radio amateurs today (Technicians) don't know code
(culture), that most who do know code don't use it (tradition)

Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes? I'd love to
see 'em put it to a vote. No internet polls...just a "one ham, one ballot"
vote. Oh, it shouldn't be just hams? Horsefeathers, WE define OUR
hobby/service. If a prospective ham feels that strongly about it, enter the
fold and then be heard.

, that code is
not used for our service to those outside Amateur Radio (rules), and so
on.

Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight.

(snip) Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly (snip)


It is a barrier to those who have no interest in Morse Code. Nothing
more
and nothing less.

That's odd, I've QSO'd via phone with a number of ops on 20 that have no
interest in Morse code, yet they did not let the code elements (Much less,
solely Element 1.) deter them from earning HF privies. It's just a
requirement to be fulfilled. Nothing more, nothing less.

Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the
stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently
motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this
"regulatory" mumbo jumbo.


I've repeatedly said I have no interest whatsoever in learning code.
Doesn't that qualify as "insufficiently motivated?"

It would if it remained your individual issue, sure. Instead it's morphed
into an "international" movement, the result of which will devalue AR as a
whole. Then it's our issue...and many may hold you responsible. I know I'd
NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be foolish to believe that
everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.)
Welcome to HF, Dwight. Be careful what you wish for.

Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who
said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient
for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I
address you as W5NET/AE, hmm?


Actually, I probably wouldn't rush out to upgrade. I have no place to
install HF antennas, and probably will not for several more years. In
fact,
I'm in a situation now where my participation in VHF/UHF is even somewhat
hindered. As such, upgrading my license will serve no purpose anytime
soon.
Therefore, I'll probably just leave what I have well enough alone.

Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas are made to be
used in just your situation and are no bigger than VHF mobil antennas.
There's also a special feeling of accomplishment with making a contact with
2-1/2 Watts into an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily
from a window.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI