**** 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
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=