In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:


In summary, this petition should not be tossed aside lightly.
It should be hurled aside with great force.

Hansl:

Preferably aimed at, smashing into, and demolishing any similar
petitions.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is a
matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be subjected to
questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use that
mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no requirement for
any ham to ever use it.

while I don't advocate it, a touch-typing test would be more
relevant to the future of ham radio than a Morse test.

Why touch-typing? Isn't hunt-and-peck good enough?

5 wpm code is like being able to hunt-and-peck type at 10 wpm, not
touch-typing.

[snip]

Anyway I want to assure you I that I put thought into the petition and
sincerely believe that CW testing for CW privileges was a compromise.

It appears that AH0A either did not read the R&O in 98-143 and the
denials of the Petitions for Reconsideration that were filed, or he didn't
understand/accept what the FCC clearly said.

Or maybe he just disagrees. FCC's decisions are simply FCC opinion, not some
form of absolute proof. (Note what has happened to FCC's decision on broadcast
media ownership rules. While something like that won't happen to the amateur
rules, it proves the point).

Of course it's clear from FCC actions that any petition that *increases*
testing complexity is going to have a very very small chance of being acted
upon by FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same
category ...)

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is
a
matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be
subjected to
questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use
that
mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no
requirement for
any ham to ever use it.

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose
of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU.

While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to
administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams
should possess.

Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't
been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to
amateur radio! :-)

That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose
of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU.

While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to
administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams
should possess.

Well, there are SEVEN petitions for rulemaking posted by the
FCC for retention of code testing...in addition to the seven posted
for the elimination of code testing.

Those for code test retention are RM-10805 through RM-10811
inclusive. The most glaring of the "stuck-in-the-past emotional
attachment to old ways" is Napurano's RM-10806. A classic,
almost, in the gratuitous glorification of morse beyond reasonable
bounds of the state of the art of radio of 30 years ago. It exceeds
morse glorification of FISTS' RM-10811 document. :-)

Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only
extras having code tests.

I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem
content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-)

LHA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same
category ...)

Both are also practical skills, are they not? Practical as opposed to
theoretical.

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is
a matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be
subjected to questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use
that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no
requirement for any ham to ever use it.

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

It's just a recommendation, though - not a requirement.

That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose
of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU.

So is touch typing, knowing Morse code, knowing how to solder, and a whole
bunch of other things.

While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to
administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams
should possess.

Sure - but it's just a recommendation.

Can we really say that the questions on RTTY in the current written tests
really assure that hams have theoretical knowledge of RTTY at the level
recommended by M-1544?

And note this:

When I took my most recent ham exam that counted for a license, the only TOR
mode authorized for hams was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY using FSK or OOK. (Shift
had to be less than 900 Hz, as I recall.

No PSK-31, no packet, no PACTOR or even AMTOR. Not even ASCII!

Back then the power limit was different, repeater rules were very different,
and the 30, 17 or 12 meter bands weren't even a distant dream. The technology
used in most ham rigs was also very different.

And the tests we took back then had lots of things in them that are no longer
in the current tests. Neutralization of triode RF power amplifiers, for
example.....

In the intervening years, FCC has trusted me (and almost every other ham from
those days who hasn't lost interest) to keep current with amateur radio. FCC
has renewed almost all of our licenses without question, and we're allowed to
use those new modes and technologies even though we've never passed any tests
on them.

If FCC trusts us OTs to learn as we go, why not the new folks?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Well, there are SEVEN petitions for rulemaking posted by the
FCC for retention of code testing...in addition to the seven posted
for the elimination of code testing.

In the first group, there is only five petitions that request deletion
of all code exams. The Beauregard petition, RM-10781, retains
the 5 wpm code exam for both General and Extra. The Reich,
RM-10784, retains it for Extra.


Those for code test retention are RM-10805 through RM-10811
inclusive. The most glaring of the "stuck-in-the-past emotional
attachment to old ways" is Napurano's RM-10806. A classic,
almost, in the gratuitous glorification of morse beyond reasonable
bounds of the state of the art of radio of 30 years ago. It exceeds
morse glorification of FISTS' RM-10811 document. :-)

Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only
extras having code tests.

I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem
content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-)

Excellent comments. Thanks for taking the time to file.

LK

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't
been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to
amateur radio! :-)

Actually, ARRL was instrumental in developing the recomendation
and pushing it through WP8A and SG8 ...

Carl - wk3c

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

and a "reward" for learning. I fail to understand why removing Morse
testing is any different from removing all aspects of RTTY knowledge
from the written test, e.g. "T8A10. What would you connect to a
transceiver for RTTY operation?".

Clearly AH0A can't understand (or accept) that the RTTY example
is "theoretical knowledge" and the Morse test is a test of a mechanical
skill ...

You mean "a practical skill".

No, I meant "mechanical skill." (touch typing would be in the same
category ...)

Both are also practical skills, are they not? Practical as opposed to
theoretical.

If you have a problem with amateur radio license test questions, senior,
I'd suggest you contact the VEC Question Pool Committee. They are
the ones originating the content and on what subjects. FCC no longer
requires a certain percentage of specific subjects in the pool.

Both are valuable to the radio amateur. Whether either should be tested is
a matter of opinion, nothing more.

But if a person has no interest in RTTY, why should that person be
subjected to questions on the subject?

Why can't a ham be trusted to learn about RTTY if/when the desire to use
that mode arises? RTTY is "just another mode", is it not? There's no
requirement for any ham to ever use it.

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

It's just a recommendation, though - not a requirement.

Why such an absolute on "requirement" versus "recommendation?"

ITU-R documents are NOT law per se. Those are common-
agreement items for _administrations_ to consider.

At NO time will there be ANY ITU-R "police officials" arresting
ANYONE for any violations of ITU-R radio regulations or
recommendations, ANY radio service ANYWHERE.

That recommendation is consistent with the basis and purpose
of the ARS, both as defined by the FCC and the ITU.

So is touch typing, knowing Morse code, knowing how to solder, and a whole
bunch of other things.

Is the "basis and purpose of the ARS" all about morse code?

I don't think so, not in any observation of the FCC regulations.

While not strictly mandatory, it is provided as "good advice to
administrations" on what sorts of theoretical knowledge hams
should possess.

Sure - but it's just a recommendation.

Irrelevant. NO ONE can be arrested for violation of an ITU-R
"regulation." Quit trying to belabor an irrelevant point.

Can we really say that the questions on RTTY in the current written tests
really assure that hams have theoretical knowledge of RTTY at the level
recommended by M-1544?

And note this:

When I took my most recent ham exam that counted for a license, the only TOR
mode authorized for hams was 60 wpm Baudot code RTTY using FSK or OOK. (Shift
had to be less than 900 Hz, as I recall.

Oh, my. When I first USED teleprinters...NO formal classes, NO test,
just an on-the-job informal explanatin-instruction...it was over a decade
before your precious FCC test. The standard "shift" (also referred to as
"spread" colloquially) was 850 Hz Mark to Space in FSK only.

"TOR" is a partial acronym referring to "Teleprinter Over Radio" and came
into use FIRST in the commercial communications field, NOT amateur.

No PSK-31, no packet, no PACTOR or even AMTOR. Not even ASCII!

The American Standard Code for Information Interchange was divised
in the 1950s, senior, by both commercial communications and the
new Information Technology activities (than referred to as just
"computers").

"Packet" forms of net transmission already existed in the commercial
and military communications services of the 1940s. The most
rudimentary form is in the "automatic transmission distributor" portion
of teleprinter paper tape terminals (designed, manufactured by
Teletype Corporation among others). Most terminals had dual tape
readers to accept prepared tapes. As one tape finished in one reader,
the other reader began its tape; throughput was continuous as long
as an operator kept loading new tapes. This was referred to as a
"torn tape relay" system. Receiving printer-punchers were also dual
but for tape supply, not individual messages. Manual operators
would observe EOM symbols and new message address preambles
to manually separate (or "tear") received tape messages. Station
ADA had over 170 of such terminals in use 24/7.

Washington Army Radio ("WAR") was already using an automatic
electromechanical switching teleprinter message exchange system
in the mid 1950s. "Torn tape" operators were not required since the
switching system automatically routed the electrical loop signal to
the appropriate outgoing circuit through address preamble information.
The only manual operation necessary in relaying was if there was
circuit trouble resulting in garbled information.

"Packet" data networking has many and varied forms in the commercial
world. Perhaps the most-written-up form is ALOHA. It is in literature
of the electronics communications industry and Transactions of IEEE
Communications Society.

Back then the power limit was different, repeater rules were very different,
and the 30, 17 or 12 meter bands weren't even a distant dream. The technology
used in most ham rigs was also very different.

"Repeaters" came into being around 1940 in the US military. They
were known as "radio relay" then and for several decades afterwards.
The AN/PRC-6 handheld transceiver (VHF, internal battery power,
debuted during the Korean War) was DESIGNED to work with
another PRC-6 using a specific adapter cable for unattended repeater
operation. So too were the PRC-9 series of manpack transceivers,
all designed for easy set-up in pairs as unattended repeaters. The
AN/TRC-1 through AN/TRC-8 group of radio relay terminals was
specifically designed for unattended operation and were used in
Europe during WW2. "Repeaters" are certainly nothing new in
technology nor are they of amateur radio origin.

And the tests we took back then had lots of things in them that are no longer
in the current tests. Neutralization of triode RF power amplifiers, for
example.....

I was successfully operating high-power vacuum tube amplifiers in HF
communications WITHOUT being formally tested and WITHOUT any
formal training in high-power HF transmitters at ADA. On-the-job
verbal instructions sufficed, taking less than a day for explanations
and individual run-through of procedure. The workhorse transmitter
at ADA in the 1950s was the BC-339, 1 KW RF output using a
pair of 833 triodes in the final amplifier. Yes, "neutralization" was
required to be observed on the 339 and all the others. Not a problem.
Not a "test subject" nor were there any "legal requirements."

Since those days long ago, I was given job responsibility to DESIGN
and prototype RF power amplifiers and power sources WITHOUT
any formal testing and WITHOUT any specific formal schooling in
such techniques. At the same time, I was REQUIRED to obey the
current laws on RF emission technical standards for the particular
radio application. Solid-state technology and techniques can be
remarkably DIFFERENT from vacuum tube technology and
techniques.

In the intervening years, FCC has trusted me (and almost every other ham from
those days who hasn't lost interest) to keep current with amateur radio.

Try reviewing FCC regulations a bit closer, senior. FCC REQUIRES
you (and all others) to emit RF WITHIN technical regulations. That
INCLUDES whatever has become "current" resulting from changes
since an operator was licensed.

REQUIREMENT. BY LAW. Enforced by United States peace officers,
trial and imprisonment possible.

FCC
has renewed almost all of our licenses without question, and we're allowed to
use those new modes and technologies even though we've never passed any tests
on them.

Lucky you. Now, what was your point (if any)?

If FCC trusts us OTs to learn as we go, why not the new folks?

FCC "trusts" (actually entrusts) the VEC QPC to come up with
questions and answers for the amateur radio license tests. Those
tests apply to ALL ages.

I'll challenge ANY of the old-timers to "learn as they go." That's
what I've done, successfully, during my whole career in radio
and electronics. Some of those same old-timers are still anal
retentive on retention of a morse code test in a radio service
that is basically an avocational and recreational activity. I'd say
those anal retentive old-timers are resisting learning because
they CANNOT learn as they go.

LHA

In article , "lk"
writes:

Roux' petition of RM-10810 is split on code test necessity, only
extras having code tests.

I've already filed Comments on all 14. The others in here seem
content with just jawing and hollering among themselves... :-)

Excellent comments. Thanks for taking the time to file.

Larry, it's interesting to see the "mix" of RMs. Seven essentially for
the elimination of the code test, seven essentially for its retention.
I observe some deliberate picking of what to make into a released
RM on some curious "equal-sized-teams" contest.

What the public does NOT get a chance to see easily is how many
petitions for change actually arrived at the FCC. All the public can
see is what is officially selected for issuance. It's difficult to find out
what RMs exist unless there is an ex officio communications means
elsewhere to let everyone know.

The FCC is attempting to be fair in the "7 versus 7" in my opinion.
All are, or were, open for Comment. Comments on 98-143 are still
open for Internet access even though those comments were supposed
to cease on 15 January 1999. :-) Been about a half thousand
comments on 98-143 _since_ official closure.

One thing for su The FCC now has a quick and easy procedure
for Comment upload from either "manual" entry (on-line) or via
prepared documents in five file formats. That's a good thing for all.
Making sensible/logical commentary is quite another thing... :-)

LHA

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

There is an ITU-R Recommendation that deals with the sorts of
THEORETICAL knowledge that hams should possess ... IIRC,
it's ITU-R Recommendation M.1544 ...

Carl, I think that is "irrelevant" in this newsgroup. If it hasn't
been officially published by the ARRL, it can't apply at all to
amateur radio! :-)

Actually, ARRL was instrumental in developing the recomendation
and pushing it through WP8A and SG8 ...

Carl, you deserve a bigger hand for helping the changes at WRC-03
regardless of the few ARRL actually involved with Working Group 6
at the FCC. The minutes of those meetings, terribly late in coming,
are on public view.

I would suppose that ARRL executive-president-for-life Dave Sumner
did help change S25 in Geneva. From his reportings to the IARU
website - NOT the ARRL web pages - he was NOT expressing any
enthusiasm for changing S25 nor showing much bias for either side.

It is also evidenciary that IARU policy on code testing had ALREADY
shifted to no code test in 2002, almost a year before WRC-03. ARRL
public policy statements took a neutral stance, supporting only
obediance to federal regulations whatever they would become. That's
a clear case of division of opinion within the ARRL upper echelons...
the public (and membership) is shielded from internal divisions by the
public stance of "neutrality" on code testing.

Any sign of internal division in a membership organization (a minority
group considering all the licensed amateurs NOT members) shows
that ARRL cannot reach any consensus itself! It would then be
useless to use any neutral ARRL public policy statement to show a
"consensus" opinion on "representation of US amateur opinion."

The rest of the radio world goes on advancing to the future. ARRL
leadership seems firmly rooted to the past, trying to regain the glory
of the executives' and BoD' youth long past.

LHA