"Bert Craig" wrote:

I believe it's the job of the majority to work on getting
the FCC to view it that way. (Assuming, of course, the
majority are PCTA's. Your opinion may differ.)


But to do so would require the FCC to change the way it has viewed Amateur
Radio almost since its creation. If we argue that we're just another radio
service (like CB), with no connection to anything outside Amateur Radio
(other radio services, etc), then the argument supporting our massive
frequencies is sharply weakened. The emergency communications aspect is not
enough to support that because we can do that with far less frequencies (a
few frequencies on each band, with perhaps far less bands). We have to be
very careful here that we don't cut our leg off in the process of trying to
save the foot (or, in this case, CW testing).


My job is like that. The building is really well shielded
and I wanted to run an inconspicuous 30/40m SW+
QRP rig from my desk.


We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily
attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this
building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is
directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of
time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office
entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them
would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're
hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small
antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to
walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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

You might want to take a look at the NCI and NCVEC petitions, for a
start on who is claiming what.

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.

Actually, it is unique in that ability. What other mode permits a
skilled operator to extract so much on-air performance from such
simple equipment?

Last night I worked a ham in Mississippi on 40 CW. He was running a
homebrew 3 watt QRP transceiver of his own design and a simple wire
antenna. I was running my homebrew 100 watt Southgate Type 7
transceiver and inverted V. Good solid QSO, homebrew-to-homebrew. How
often does that happen on any other mode? How much performance would
you expect from a simple homebrew SSB transceiver of the same
complexity?

Whatever happened to the beloved Elecraft kit? Fail to work?

In fact, almost any knowledge of radio would allow that.

What homebrew rig would you recommend to a newcomer with no
experience, few resources, but a great desire to learn?

A used 10 meter transceiver developed from a CB rig.

Push-to-talk, release to listen, only voice needed (no hours and hours
of practice at morse). Lots of jargon and phrases to learn to avoid the
catcalls from the traditionalists in hamlingo.

Such transceivers have a two-decade maturity of existance, are fairly
standard in structure/architecture.

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?

It's true because there are folks who actually want to build radios
with their own hands and heads, rather than buy them ready-made. Kinda
like home-cooking, even though there are restaurants all over, and
packaged foods of every description in the supermarkets.

Lots of KITS on the market still, aren't there?

Plus there's money to be saved. My current homebrew rig cost me less
than $100 to build. How much of a used rig HF rig can you buy for
under $100?

$100 at what year's earnings? Have you priced vacuum tube replacements
these days?

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.

And that's sad. In fact, it's a real problem for a service that FCC
calls "fundamentally technical".

I do wish you PCTA would get your acts together. The status quo
traditionalist and resident mysoginist Roll says it is "all about
operating!. You say it's all about "technical building."

How can we say we're a "technical" radio service if we don't even
design, build, repair or maintain our radios?

From any sort of inspection of the photographs of various amateur
radio "shacks" of the last three decades, the vast majority use
ready-built equipment.

Solid-state radios don't need their tubes changed.

What does it matter if a ham knows how the DDS synthesizer in his
Ikensu box works if, at the first sign of trouble, he packs it up and
sends it to a service facility without even trying to fix it?

What's your problem? I thought you said yesterday you were this
big mentor in ham radio. Why aren't you out there TEACHING all
these newcomers all about the radio technical arts?

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?

I don't know - but there are some. One reason there aren't more is
because of the de-emphasis of HF and CW as a starting point in the
ARS.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. At age 20 I was made responsible for operating and
maintaining top-of-the-line (for 1953) high-power HF transmitters (three
dozen of them) that DID NOT USE any morse code modes.

You think an average motivated 13 year old couldn't build a simple CW
rig today, put it on the air and make lots of contacts with it?

Why are you so FIXATED on the ONLY WAY a newcmer can get
started in ham radio is to be a young teenager?

Are you afraid that those older than teen years will realize what a farce
the start-simple-at-CW thinking of the 1930s is in the year 2003?

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.

That was one of the prime arguments for dropping the code test for
Tech back in 1990, and it's one of the prime arguments for dropping it
altogether today. You want me to quote chapter and verse from some
petitions?

Feel free. I'd like to see those myself.

I've not seen any "petition" having "chapter and verse." Sounds like
you are very disturbed at some heretical ideas replacing the morse
religion of pre-WW2 times (as published in the hymals of the Church
of St.Hiram.

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?

Because there were *allegedly* all sorts of "technically qualified"
and "cutting edge" folks out there just itching to get a ham license
and usher in a brave new world of ham radio - except they were stopped
by the code test. Either they weren't interested in code or they
didn't have the time, or they refused to "jump through the code test
hoop".

Well, SOMEONE had to mention had to mention technical advances
in amateur radio by other than the USERS of ready-built gear.

Lord knows there were NOT a lot of "cutting edge" stuff from the old-
timers carrying on their love affairs with on-off keying codes.

Yes, Dan Tayloe did a very good advancement in one small sliver
of low-powe radio technology and HE deserves the credit, not "CW."

When used with a polyphase audio network it works excellently as a
very high IP3 direct-conversion QRP SSB receiver. NO morse code
required.

But, you state that the Tayloe mixer was coneived JUST for morse
code reception. That's patently false (Dan has his patent application
in and waiting...which can sometimes be 3 years).

We ALL KNOW in here that you are a code fanatic, Sheriff Jimmie.
All the proselyte text is clogging everyone's HD. Try to remove the
blinders and realize that all DO NOT think as you do of the "excellency
of morsemanship" a la the 1930s standards and practices.

LHA

"WA8ULX" wrote:

BS, first they dont Study, or even know the Basic Material.
All they do is Memorize some Q&As, and then take a test
on material they know nothing about.


Perhaps that's what you did, Bruce. But just because you did it that way
doesn't mean others did. I studied for the test, fully understood the
concepts, and took the test with the confidence of knowing and understanding
the material presented.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

We have to be
very careful here that we don't cut our leg off in the process of trying to
save the foot (or, in this case, CW testing).

Its to late the legs are already gone.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

The same argument can be used for Smith charts since
Techs are not required to learn that either.


Its not an argument about whether one is required to learn something. The
issue is what makes one person "more qualified" or "more experienced" AS A
HAM RADIO OPERATOR than another person. Now, unless the Smith charts become
the sole criterior for that judgement, the total sum of what it takes to be
a ham radio operator, the premise that one person is "more qualified" or
"more experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because he knows the Smith
charts is flatly wrong.


Morse code is a skill used in amateur radio so someone
who knows it is a more qualified operator than someone
who doesn't whether or not it is a required skill. Just as
knowing how to use a Smith chart makes one more
qualified.


Likewise, Morse code is not the sole criterior for juding whether a person
is "more qualified" or "more experienced" as a ham radio operator either.
Therefore, the very premise behind your statement is fundamentally flawed.
Since Morse Code is no longer required to be a ham radio operator (note the
200,000 Techs), it is absurd to judge someone as "less qualified" or "less
experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because that person doesn't know
Morse code.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

The inescapable, logical conclusion that results is this: Having
Morse code skills makes a ham more experienced and more
qualified as an amateur radio operator - all else being equal.


You're "all else being equal" disclaimer is silly, Jim. When talking about
human beings, there is never a time when all else is equal. Regardless, by
your logic, all else being equal, since I've posted more messages in this
ham radio-related newsgroup than most (perhaps even you), and computers are
used in connection with ham radio to send similar messages, that alone makes
me "more qualified" and "more experienced" AS A HAM RADIO OPERATOR than most
(perhaps even you). Of course, that very premise is absurd, isn't it? And
your premise is equally absurd. In my opinion, only a truly desperate person
would grasp at a tiny thread like this to support a claim that they're "more
experienced" or "more qualified" than someone else.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" writes:
More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim?
Morse Code only, not as a ham operator. With the
Technician license, the FCC has already established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be
a ham radio operator.

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge
of Morse code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur
radio operator. There are two higher classes which require
a code test.


Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than
Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code
is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator.


If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will
simply prove that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as
a whole, and that it responds to political pressure -- i.e.
petitions to remove code testing, and the comments which
support them.


No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the
world around us. Larry.

"We are persuaded 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. We
note, moreover, that the design of modern communications
systems, including personal communication services, satellite,
fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based
on digital communication technologies. We also note that
no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to
receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be
automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred
in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that
reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a
licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as
it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No.
98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196

The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination
of the Element 1(a) code test.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

In today's society, it is politically incorrect to consider
one person better than another in almost any field
regardless of how much they know in that field and
how little the other person knows.


No, Dee. Jim's premise is not politically incorrect - it's simply
incorrect.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Personally I consider basic code one of the fundamentals
of radio even if one chooses not to use it after learning it.
As a basic, I believe it should be tested. (snip)


The FCC, myself, thousands of other Amateur Operators, and the entire rest
of the radio world outside Amateur Radio, disagrees.


That is the position I will continue to support. And I will
continue to promote code use whether the code testing is
dropped or not.


You can count me in. I strongly support and promote the use of Amateur
Radio in every form. CW is a fine operating mode and should be promoted
right along with the rest of the operating modes available to us.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

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

You might want to take a look at the NCI and NCVEC
petitions, for a start on who is claiming what.


Excuse me? I'm not a member of, nor do I represent, NCI or NCVEC. Again,
I've never made such a claim. If you have a problem with something those
groups have said, take it up with them. I have no accountability whatsoever
for anything they've said or done.


I didn't know the Technician license was supposed
to lead to a technical revolution in anything, Jim.

That was one of the prime arguments for dropping the
code test for Tech back in 1990, and it's one of the
prime arguments for dropping it altogether today. You
want me to quote chapter and verse from some
petitions?


In its 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, the FCC said...

"Given the changes that have occurred in communications
in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis
on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will
allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract
technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our
country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare
themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

I don't see anything in there about a technical revolution, Jim. Instead,
I see an effort to attact "technically inclined persons" and "encourage them
to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States
needs expertise." I fully agree with that position. If someone has said
something different, that is not my position, nor the position of the FCC.
By the way, I also agree with that as it applies to the elimination of the
code testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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