"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Therein lies the problem with the whole CW test (TEST, *test*) debate.
The
minute one takes on the "no" CW test argument, it is generally met with
an
attitude that an end CW use (USE, *use*) is being favored or called for.

Kim:

Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use.

I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF
"soured" more people on code use than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to
use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in
to get past the test, then "threw away the key."

Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar."

OK, fine, your opinion is well stated.

Now consider that same logic applied to the written test.

It could be asserted with equal logic that being forced to learn
theory and other subjects a ham is not interested in just to gain
access to amateur radio
"soured" more people on radio theory than it encouraged ... of course,
some percentage of folks decided they liked aspects of amateur radio
that they had not considered or known about before, but MANY simply
endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then
"threw away the Handbook"

This isn't a straw argument. I've known hams who sold off their study
materials as soon as they passed the *written* tests.

Now some folks will say "But the writtens support the basis and
purpose of amateur radio as a technical service - there's even an ITU
recommendation" - etc. And of course all hams do need to know the
applicable regulations, safety and operating practices, so of course
the written test cannot be completely eliminated.

But has the existence of several tiers of written testing actually
made hams "more technical"? Does being tested on how to compute
complex impedances and Thevenin equivalents make a ham more likely to
build equipment, experiment with new modes, participate in public
service communication, be a VE and/or Elmer, and be a more friendly,
helpful amateur? Does such testing make a ham less likely to commit
rules violations?

From 1953 to 1968, US amateur radio had only two *effective* written
tests - the Novice and the General/Conditional/Technician. Yes, the
Extra existed, but it was a "prestige" license only, which granted no
additional operating privileges at all. The 20 question Novice got new
hams started, and the ~50 question General took care of the rest.

The reintroduction of "incentive licensing" in late 1968 was supposed
to push hams to be "more technical" by requiring two more written
tests beyond the General in order to get full privileges. But did that
result happen?

Some might cite the 20 wpm code test for Extra, but in fact the most
gain in privileges was made by upgrading to Advanced, which required
no additional code test.

After 1990 (13 years ago), medical waivers allowed those with problems
learning code past 5 wpm to get any class of amateur license on the
basis of the 5 wpm code test alone. And since restructuring, we're
down to just one additional written test beyond General for full
privileges.

Has any of that made US hams or ham radio in the US "more technical"
in the past 35 years? Or just the opposite? Does *forcing* someone to
learn a little bit about radio theory make them want to build radios?

Hans, K0HB, has proposed a 2 level system that would be very similar
to the old "pre-incentive" system. One easy test for newbies and a
full privs test for everybody else. And like the old system, the
newcomer license would not be renewable, so upgrading would
effectively be *required*.

At first I though it was a "looney-tune" idea (to use Hans' phrase),
but now I'm not so sure. Perhaps he is on to something.

FCC effectively reduced the number of written testing levels from 5 to
3 back in 2000. NCVEC is beginning to make noises that the Tech test
is "too hard", and they also note that their "dump Element 1" petition
is only a first step. Also, a look at the AH0A database shows a severe
drop in new Techs since the new Tech Q&A pool was effective in
mid-July.

If someone says we need less *written* testing and an *easier* entry
level test (with suitably reduced privs), how can they be refuted?

If someone says "The only reason you Extras want people to have to
pass all these *written* tests is because *you* had to!" - how can
they be refuted?

How can Hans' proposal be refuted? There's nothing in the theory part
of the Extra written that is required knowledge for the safe and legal
operation of an amateur station on any authorized band or mode. And
much of the regs in both the General and Extra exam are about what an
Extra can do that a General can't.

Quite a number of hams today think that "incentive licensing" was a
mistake. Quite a number of hams today think that the 1953-1968 era was
a "golden age" that was ruined by the class divisions and forced
learning/testing of incentive licensing.

Some people learn theory very easily, while for others it's a
difficult process. People who would make excellent hams but who aren't
good with numbers, science, and/or memorization of things like band
edges may be being kept out, or kept from full access, by the
*written* testing.

In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively
fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a
result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing
is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated
concepts.

Would anyone accept this argument, particlularly looking back over the
past 35 years?:

'In the absence of multiple levels of theory testing, there will be
progressively fewer hams who have been exposed to learning theory as a
result of the tests. Since the test requirement was the principle
motivation to learn the theory, the technical level of hams themselves
and of amateur radio in general *will* decline. Therefore, testing
and technical know-how are two closely interrelated concepts.'

Or how about this rebuttal:

Those who want technical knowhow in amateur radio are either unwilling
to expend
the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give
the
theory a try and see if you like it." And, they are apparently
unwilling to
take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. Thus, they continue
to
seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive
"recruiting
program" for them ...

--

Which approach is more effective for getting hams interested in
technical subjects - the "honey" of demonstrations and examples, or
the "vinegar" of forced testing beyond the minimum necessary for safe
and legal operation of an amateur station?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.


Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides.


Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.


Nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't about USE it is about
the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a
license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge
requirment has ended.

But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the
test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by
inprisonment.

My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are
technically backwards.




I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater.


It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical
backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail
as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point,
don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143
and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already
been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC.


I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting.


Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge.


You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't
make myself clear. This isn't about the test.


Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only
opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O.

Bill, it isn't about the test.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


Agreed.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


Not sure what relationship you are referring to.

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
news
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.


Unfortuneately, extremist comments are present on both sides.


Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.


Nothing wrong with that. The issue isn't about USE it is about
the lack of any rational reason to retain code testing as a
license requirement now that the ITU mandatory code knowledge
requirment has ended.

But that isn't my question or argument, Bill. It isn't really about the
test. I don't care if they make the taking the test punishable by
inprisonment.

My question was related to the statements that Pro coders are
technically backwards.




I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.


It isn't that the individuals that want code retained are in a technical
backwater, but rather that their procode test arguments fail
as to any technical reason for retaining code testing. On that point,
don't take my word on it, read the FCC R&O on NPRM98-143
and you'll find every argument being put forth today has already
been made to the FCC and rejected by the FCC.


I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.


Feel free to let me know if I fail that challenge.


You did just fine from the civility standpoint, but perhaps I didn't
make myself clear. This isn't about the test.


Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


As above, for the facts and the ultimate opinion (the only
opinion that in the end means anything) can be found in 98-143 R&O.

Bill, it isn't about the test.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


Agreed.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


Not sure what relationship you are referring to.

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.

OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.


OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little
donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the
usual rancor here.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.


OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little
donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the
usual rancor here.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Yeah. Uh huh. Well, spend some time to see "what side" began degrading it,
Mike. And, as far as I can see, "that side" is the far more agressive and
offending one, even now...

Kim W5TIT

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

Mike:

Your statement is correct. The connection between code testing/use
and technical insufficiency among radio amateurs is one of the most
specious, improbable, and self-serving arguments ever contrived by
the NCTA.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

Speaking from personal experience, the hams I've known who were the most
likely to be technically involved were also those who both embraced the use
of the Morse/CW mode, and supported the concept of code testing as a
licensing requirement. They were always the ones most active on the air,
not only on HF but on VHF as well -- and I mean weak-signal VHF, not FM.

I have also known a lot of highly technical "no-coders," but their contribution
was mainly in the arena of FM repeaters. However, they have, for the most
part, been unconcerned about the code testing issue, since they had no
aspirations to operate HF. I highly value their efforts, and consider them to
be full-fledged hams. This assessment is strengthened by the fact that they
left themselves out of a debate over a topic they knew little or nothing
about.

The whole ball of wax boils down to one thing -- the willingness of a certain
group of prospective hams to meet licensing requirements which support
the learning and use of what is unquestionably one of the most versatile and
useful modes of radio communication -- CW using Morse code. Since the
ability to effectively employ this mode holds the unique requirement that the
operator acquire a physical skill, and considering the fact that many other
modes which do not levy this skill development "overhead" exist, has caused
many people to vent their frustration at this requirement, rather than make an
honest attempt to overcome it. In so doing, they have tried almost every
trick in the book, including the "code = technical decline" argument.

One cannot ignore that the principle motivation of the NCTA is just plain,
old-fashioned laziness. This is a human trait, and we are all guilty of it, to
some extent. That is not a "barb," it is just honesty. I consider myself
qualified to make that judgment, since I squandered what is now 28% of
my lifetime being on the wrong side of the code/no-code testing ideology.
My problem was I was too lazy to be bothered to learn the code and
become a licensed radio amateur. When my desire to become a ham
finally overcame my laziness, everything else fell into place in very short
order. The sooner we recognize the true motivation of the NCTA, the
sooner they will be shown to be wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

(snip) I would challenge the NCTA's to show some
proof that those who believe that the morse code
test should be retained are in a technical backwater.


I think you're focusing on the wrong issue, Mike. When discussing the
retention of code testing, the real issue is how doing so futhers the basis
and purpose of Amateur Radio. The FCC has framed this several times. For
example...

"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

As you can see, none of this focuses on the individual people opposing or
supporting code testing. Instead, it focuses on what furthers the basis and
purpose of Amateur Radio. If others focused on the same, there would perhaps
be far less hostility in the discussion.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse
claims? Which of these do you find acceptable?



It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use
for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and
for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't
communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the
planet DID depend on it!

Dick:

More realistically, they couldn't use CW to communicate their way
out of an emergency even if the life of one person depended on it!
That is a much more likely scenario than any sort of "planetary" disaster.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Jim:

Indeed. And more often than not, it's usually good, 'ole fashion Morse/CW
which is getting through.


And just to crown their ignorarance of it all, when I found a
dead-band morning where there was group of very weak Europeans coming in
on 20 meter PSK31 that wouldn't print, but their CW ID's were completely
good copy, Carl and his little lid buddy Brain Burke accuse me of "not
being able to make PSK31 work!"

Dick:

LOL! I've had that experience many times on PSK-31. I think it's
a fantastic mode, but it has it's own built-in feature which serves to
prove the value of CW!

Can you believe the clowns? I had only been working PSK31 for the past
6 or 8 months!

I know, the reason for the failure of PSK31 in that case was likely
polar phase shift, but that seems to be meaningless to our technical
genius and his pals!

Polar phase shift, eh? Seems to be a lot of that going around on PSK-31
these days! Like I said, I think it's a great mode, but it hasn't caused me
to toss my CW keys in the trash -- yet!

"Too many clowns and not enough ringmasters!"

*They're already here!"

So it would seem.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

As for the fate of the planet,
when is the sequal coming out to ID4?



Whatever it is, I didn't see the first three and have similar lack of
interest in the fourth.

Dick:

"ID4" is the production company's short name for the film which was
released under the name "Independence Day." It was only one film
and had no sequels. However, I really do suggest that you do see
it. It shows what happens when our planet is invaded by No-code
Techs. They get beat by those who know how to use Morse/CW.

73 de Larry, K3LT