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

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

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

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the
logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code
test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

73, Leo

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:34:37 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

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

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

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

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.


My statement is that there is no direct relationship.


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.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Mike,

An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the
logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code
test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

73, Leo

Leo,

The whole discussion and every possible argument pro/con on code testing
has been reviewed in the comments filled under NPRM98-143 as well as
several other past FCC reviews.
In the 98-143 R&O which came from all those comments,
the FCC found not one reason of
sufficient cause to retain any code testing...EXCEPT, at that time, the
ITU treaty still required code testing for hams permitted under 30MHz
operation.

As of July 5, 2003 the ITU treaty changed and ended mandatory
morse testing completely...leaving any decision to have any morse testing
that of each individual country.

Given the end to the ITU treaty requirement and coupling that with the
prior findings of the FCC R&O for 98-143, the only conclusion one
can have is that...absent anything NEW in the arguments, the FCC
should now remove all morse testing.

People can argue with the past FCC findings, but nothing being
offered now is anything that the FCC hasn't heard before. Add to that
the fact that other administrations have already ended code testing
since July 5, 2003 one can also conclude that it isn't likly that the
USA will retain code anymore. In the end, it is not a matter of IF, but
more
simply WHEN.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , Leo
writes:

By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

Leo:

Emotion, personal opinion, and bias is the sum total of the NCTA
repertoire. I should know; I used to be one!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Leo
writes:

An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the
logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code
test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the
discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised.

Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to remove personal opinion from the
discussion. That's because every reason for keeping or removing the test
ultimately comes down to an opinion question.

For example, take the "Morse is needed for emergencies" reason.

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable. Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it? How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges? I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there. Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the
only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's
a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code
test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no.

Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades.

That's one reason.

In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it?

Here are some reasons:

- Morse is fun for many thousands of hams
- Lots of interesting DX on Morse only
- Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than many TOR
modes
- Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler than
any other mode
- Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a
unique way of communicating
- Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes.
- There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the bands
where Morse is usually used.

How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges?

Through the incentives of:

- improved performance of a given radio setup
- less crowded spectrum space
- a unique communications experience not available elsewhere
- rare DX
- spectrum conservation

There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see. As
in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc.
"Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other folks
have been selling their modes for years.

If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into mikes
and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists.

Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set up
demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not the
same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed.

Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode to
bring along on a backpack trip?

Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack of
QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power requirement
that will perform anywhere near as well?

You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station
making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more modest
setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points earned by
a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup running
CW, serious selling is happening.

I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there.

That's you. It's not everybody.

Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test.

Some will never be sold no matter what you do.

And some will be sold if approached in the right way.

Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).

How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after getting
frustrated with other modes.

Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring):

Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF and
passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs and
computer software.

But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a far
different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO.

Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever need to
pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set up.
There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code operating at
all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort learning
to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse.

But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a small
amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy,
sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc.

I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's had
many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few
weekends away.........

And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others and
repeat the cycle. Test or no test.

--

Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every ham.
Just enough hams. And a positve image.

Does that answer the question?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication.
On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the
only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean
that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say
it's
a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with
is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a
code
test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no.

Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades.

That's one reason.

In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it?

Here are some reasons:

- Morse is fun for many thousands of hams
- Lots of interesting DX on Morse only
- Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than
many TOR
modes
- Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler
than
any other mode
- Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a
unique way of communicating
- Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes.
- There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the
bands
where Morse is usually used.

How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges?

Through the incentives of:

- improved performance of a given radio setup
- less crowded spectrum space
- a unique communications experience not available elsewhere
- rare DX
- spectrum conservation

There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see.
As
in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc.
"Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other
folks
have been selling their modes for years.

If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into
mikes
and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists.

Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set
up
demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not
the
same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed.

Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode
to
bring along on a backpack trip?

Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack
of
QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power
requirement
that will perform anywhere near as well?

You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station
making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more
modest
setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points
earned by
a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup
running
CW, serious selling is happening.

I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there.

That's you. It's not everybody.

Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test.

Some will never be sold no matter what you do.

And some will be sold if approached in the right way.

Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).

How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after
getting
frustrated with other modes.

Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring):

Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF
and
passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs
and
computer software.

But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a
far
different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO.

Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever
need to
pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set
up.
There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code
operating at
all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort
learning
to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse.

But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a
small
amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy,
sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc.

I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's
had
many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few
weekends away.........

And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others
and
repeat the cycle. Test or no test.

--

Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every
ham.
Just enough hams. And a positve image.

Does that answer the question?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Jim,

I think you have said it better here than any other that I have seen so far!


Ryan KC8PMX

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the
only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's
a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code
test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no.

Then its a good thing that the Germans and Japanese only captured
dittyboppers in WWII, otherwise these POWs would not have been able to
tap out messages.

You guys are rediculous. Absolutely.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...

How'd I miss this?

Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring):

Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF and
passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs and
computer software.

But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a far
different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO.

Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever need to
pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set up.
There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code operating at
all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort learning
to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse.

But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a small
amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy,
sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc.

I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's had
many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few
weekends away.........

Well Folks, the "relatively new ham" Jim is referring to is me. I too
am priviliged and honored, especially so to have worked my Elmer as my
first CW contact. Was passing Element 1 easy? Yeah, once the
characters started flowing. Was working another AR station OTA using
CW for the first time easy? Nope...but it gets better, and more so
every time out. The common denominator is the feeling of
accomplishment and the associated pride that comes from both
experiences. If any other newbies are out there reading this, DON'T
let ANYBODY minimize this factor. Experience it for yourself and then
YOU be the judge. Betcha you'll like it.

So when folks talk about having to demonstrate Morse "proficiency" to
get on HF, don't believe 'em. Memorizing 43 Morse code characters and
passing Element 1 at 5-wpm is nowhere near any level of "proficiency"
needed to effectively get OTA. What it did do for me though was allow
me to make an educated decision as to whether I wanted to pursue it
any further or not. The new QSL cards on the wall speak for themselves
re. my feelings about CW's merits.

Worked a fellow in Rochester, NY (From LI, NY.) with a QRP rig putting
out 2.5 Watts into a dipole, simply fantastic. I'm fortunate enough to
live in an antenna friendly neighborhood, HOWEVER, no antenna
restrictions could ever keep me off the air with this type of QRP
capability available. I'll bet many a wire get dropped from windows to
work 40 at night. (Very affordable too.) That's just one example of a
practical real-world benefit, there are more that Jim's already
touched on. Something to think about.

And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others and
repeat the cycle. Test or no test.

You betcha! My first customer is in first grade.

TNX AGN N2EY es CUL.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI