Brian wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Alun
writes:

I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either.

Heresy.

All know that ham radio is governed by the BoD at Newington.

So it shall always be.

Amen.

dit dit

Praise be to Hiram.

didit

Always nice to have an affirmation from Len's Little Electrolyte.

Dave K8MN

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N2EY wrote:
(snip) Is that bad? Are you against direct
democracy and polling of those most affected?

(snip) You're avoiding the central issue. I think
you know that if such a poll were actually taken,
you might not like the results. (snip)

Bingo! This issue seems to run along "party lines".
I'm just about certain that the more non-amateurs
included in any poll, the lower the support for
Morse code, and vice versa.

I think you and Jim are both (perhaps intentionally) missing the point.
This issue is not limited to just the ham radio community. The frequencies
we use don't belong just to us - they belong to the entire country (all
Americans). As such, the FCC has to take all Americans into account when
making the rules and regulations to govern the use of those frequencies,
and
the license requirements for those frequencies. Therefore, Hans is right -
if you're going to instead propose some type of poll to help establish
what
those license requirements might be, it should include all Americans.

As for myself, if you're going to ask Amateur Radio Operators if code
testing is necessary today to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur
Radio Service (as defined in Part 97) and serves some valid need as far as
the American public is concerned, then I would love to see the results of
that poll - it would be very interesting to see how many (or how few)
operators would actually place the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service, and the needs of the American public, above their own desire to
keep a code testing requirement.
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Why Dwight, you doubt that all hams wouldn't "vote" based on common
sense, logic and what is rational as a requirement in the 21st century??
:-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) What we're saying is that on the single
issue of continued Morse code testing, (snip)

(snip) Not me. I EARNED mine. I encourage
others to EARN theirs. Is that bad? Shall I
apologize for my accomplishments and sit idly
by while others try to trash a community I
belong to?

If what you're demanding to "earn" that license is unnecessary and based
on a false premise, then I think it is bad. You haven't established, at
least not to my satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU, FCC, and
several countries around the world),

Actually, that would be ALL countries since not one country asserted a
position
of retaining the mandatory code knowledge for all HF hams.

9 countries as of Nov 14th.

...why Morse code is necessary (notice I
said necessary, not enjoyable) for ham radio today. And there is no truth
whatsoever to the premise that those without code skills in the ham radio
community are trashing anything. Instead, the vast majority are dedicated,
well-behaved, enthusiastic, participants of this community.

Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States sits
back and watches.

The list is available at:

http://www.rsgb.org/licensing/nomorse.htm

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with
feet planted firmly on today and eyes on the future? It's time to move on,
Jim. Morse code is going to be even less necessary in the future. As such,
Morse Code testing has no ligitimate place in that future
Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Agree completely!

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Alun" wrote in message
...
snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving, forward
to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia (not until
Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia, as they have
said it would be before the end of the year, but have given no date. I am
pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.

See the list at:

http://www.rsgb.org/licensing/nomorse.htm

How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have
retained it so far?

Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

The changes to government regulations, in the USAand in many other
countries, take time. Did Jim expect an overnight change in the 100+
countries? Frankly, I'm pretty amazed at the ones that have been able to
do so on such a short time interval.

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with feet planted
firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last
remaining vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence:
"Element 1 is waived for all applicants, pending revision of the
rules". Could happen, y'know.

Bring it on!!!

Probably will

What happens next?

Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

Works for me. Anyone see a problem in that?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Alun
writes:

Well, I guess that's a religeous issue, so I won't be able to convince you
otherwise.

If you look me up you'll see I'm an Extra, and you'll be able to figure
out that I passed 20 wpm. What you won't see, is that I've been a ham
since 1980, not 1992, as I'm not originally from this country.

Alun, with all due respect, such experience ist VERBOTEN in this
chat room.

Len, with all the respect that you feel you're due, this still isn't a
chat room.

The requirement to exist in this chat room requires a struct obediance
to morsemanship, tradition forever rooted in old ways back before all
the morseodist regulars ever existed.

That flies in the face of evidence that there are a wide number of views
expressed here. Once again, this isn't a chat room.

However, ham radio is not a job or a vocation, just a hobby.

Hobby, avocation, interest, passion--it still boils down to the fact
that you aren't involved in it.

In this chat room, the REGULARS maintain a LIFESTYLE of devotion,
obediance to love honor and obey amateur radio in all its past glory.

This isn't a chat room and I submit that you have no way of knowing what
regulars who post here do in amateur radio. You don't have a close
friendship with any of them and you aren't connected to amateur radio.
By the way, aren't YOU a regular here?

LIFESTYLES take precedence over logic, common sense, and
anything else not associated with amateur radio (except Michael
Jackson, foreign policy, overall economic decisions by government
and partisan politics).

It would be interesting to see you come up with proof of the LIFESTYLES
claim or of your peculiar ideas about logic, common sense, etc. If
logic and common sense prevailed, you'd likely not haunt this newgroup
at all.

Ham radio to the regulars is far more than a vocation.

Excuse me, aren't you a regular? Do you believe that ham radio is more
than a vocation? Has anyone else here told you that they believe it?

Vocations
in radio are to be pejorated, denigrated, spat upon, reviled, made fun
of and other niceties of the TURF where chat room homies consider
their 'hood.

Now you're blowing smoke. I can't remember anyone taking shots at my
voacation in communications except YOU. So the guy complaining about
others not respecting his work in radio is the same guy insulting my
work in radio. Isn't that precious?

Good old Len "Do As I say and not as I do" Anderson!

Dave K8MN

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Vocations
in radio are to be pejorated, denigrated, spat upon, reviled, made fun
of and other niceties of the TURF where chat room homies consider
their 'hood.

You mean like this sort of thing, Len?

BEGIN GOOGLE QUOTE

From: (Lenof21)
Subject: Morse monkeys are the worst!
Date: 2000/03/28
Message-ID:
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
X-Admin:


In article , (Jeffrey Herman)
writes:

Jim wrote:
(Jeffrey Herman) wrote:

Gee, I was originally WA6QIJ (from '76). Two-by-three calls *can* be an
OTer's call.
Jeff KH6O (formerly WA6QIJ WH6AEQ NH6IL KH2PZ KH6OO WH6U)

Yeah, Jeff. But you're different. You talk the talk, but you don't
walk the walk......
73, Jim KH2D

I don't "walk the walk," eh? Try 12 hours on, 12 hours off for four
years straight, copying CW. 12 and 16 MHz in the left earphone, and 22
and 26 MHz in the right during the day, or 4 and 6 in the left, and 8
and 12 in the right at night -- the Collins receivers automatically
scanning the calling segments in each of those bands.

Pile-ups? How about one every six hours around the clock -- hundreds of
ships calling so as to pass their time-sensitive WX observations; at
the same time let's not forget that several ships are standing by with
distress situations -- medical emergencies, mechanical difficulties,
engine room fires, men overboard, shifted cargo / listing due to heavy
seas and taking on water. You'd wet your pants sitting one hour of a
typical shift. It wasn't a contest where you could turn off the radio and
take a nap if it got too stressful -- this was the real life stuff --
lives being lost or saved.

That's all very nice and dramatic but this was the United States
Coast Guard, right? The same USCG that gave you food, lodging,
shelter, and free clothes that you could wet in as needed? The
same USCG that taught you morse code cognition? It wasn't
amateur radio, was it?

Jeff, the time for demanding Medals for Meritorious Service in
the USCG is past for you. That was not amateur radio, it was
PROFESSIONAL radio. You were paid for what you did (in
several ways). It was your JOB. I'm sure that the USCG did
not put you on watch if you couldn't cut it. I don't see how
all that makes you some Number One Ichiban HAM Honcho
NOW.

HF CW too much for you? Okay, sit the evening MF CW watch, instead.
500 kHz in the left phone, 499 in the right (even you're bright enough
to figure out why). What's that? An Auto-Alarm? Don't wet your pants
again, Jim, just realize that those twelve four-second dashes with
one-second pauses are setting off alarm bells on board every ship
in the Pacific within radio range -- the ship's in grave distress,
breaking up in heavy seas. Imagine the intensity of a storm that
would rip a ship in half. Have you ever heard what a transmitter
sounds like when the radio room gets flooded with sea water? It
emits a scream-like sound -- here are the final words the RO was
sending to me at the moment his transmitter screamed:

SOS NMO DE D*** HV TO LEAVE SHIP NOW TU OM FER high pitched whine

That's where the log entry ends.

Transmitters don't "scream" Jeff. They are inanimate things that
run on electricity. When the radio room on that unfortunate ship
flooded, many things could have temporarily put the transmitter
on full Continuous Wave and also to shift frequency slightly.
The "scream" you heard, if it was not in your head alone, could
have been a true CW with a frequency shift just enough to make
it sound something like a "scream."

Now sit there, Jim, and try your best to comprehend that the man
you were just in QSO with has drowned; he was one of the last men
aboard the ship -- most of the others had taken to lifeboats.

You were safe on shore, listening to a radio...provided by the
USCG, the same military service that provided you with food,
lodging, shelter, clothes (to wet in), and a modest monetary
stipend each month for your JOB. I'll bet you even got Rank
with that USCG service.

Meanwhile, in time NOW, the last officer in charge has only
to start the GMDSS...which will send distress call AND the
position of the sinking ship. As accurate as possible without
having to wet pants or make some heroic, dramatic act out
of it. No "screaming" transmitters.

Maybe the voice position is more to your level of ability. Now don't
be overwhelmed -- you'll have to listen to about 30 voice channels:
2182 kHz, 2670 kHz, the 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 22 high seas maritime
and aeronautical SSB channels, and four remote VHF sites, with each
site piping in marine channels 6, 12, 16, 22, and 23. Don't worry,
each of the 30 speakers has a little LED which will flash so you'll
know which transmitter to key up to answer someone's call. Let's
see how good you are at juggling: You have a sinking motorboat on
Kauai ch. 16 with too many family members and not enough life jackets
-- listen to those screams in the background, Jim. You'll have to
phone the air-station to launch a helo and phone CG station Kauai to
launch their 41 footer, all the while extracting as much info from
the downing family as possible. What now? The Maui ch.16 speaker has
someone yelling for help -- he's aground on a reef; phone Maui fire
department so they can launch their helo and rescue boat. Whoops -- now
you've got a ship on 12 MHz SSB with a medical emergency -- crewman with a
burst appendicitis; get USPHS on the phone and set up a phone patch
between the duty doctor and the ship. Now you've got the helo and 41
footer on channel 23 asking you to take their radio guard while they're
enroute to the drowning family. Uh oh -- the two-tone SSB Auto Alarm on
2182; oh, it's just the drunk Mexican fishermen again, playing with their
radios and singing to each other; but don't touch that volume control --
you'll have to listen to their singing all night long.

What was your comment again?

....you knew the job was dangerous when you took it...

As I said, the time for Medals For Meritorious Radio Service in
the USCG is past for you, Jeff. You were safe on shore, no
lifeboats needed, and, when your watch was over, you could
go off duty, hit the bunk, or chow down on USCG food after
changing your pants.

Yeah, Jeff. But you're different. You talk the talk, but you don't
walk the walk......
73, Jim KH2D

You're right, Jim, I didn't walk any walk; I ran a marathon each
shift, a marathon that would have left you exhausted at the *starting*
line.

Thank you Superham, once more you've saved Metropolis.

Of course, if you want some "comparisons," you can always
hang around a TRACON sometime at a busy Center if
radio "marathons" are your cuppa. Plenty "runners" in that
radio "marathon," a whole room full plus lots in the sky,
all doing things on voice. If there be "screams," then
they can be heard on cockpit voice recorders.

Enjoy your little walk, Jim. And change your wet pants.

Jeff KH6O

Jeff, you've never been under Incoming, have you? While
trying to get return artillery support on a radio while your
ears, your whole body is numbed by HE infall on your
position? Most folks in that position don't wet their
pants...every sphincter tightens up, ears go deaf, eyes
close tight, and every breath may be the last.

I just helped plant my bro-in-law, another veteran.
Why don't you quit the shore station histrionics and go
back to ancient radio history. It will ease your troubled
mind...and keep your pants dry.

Len Anderson
ex-RA16408336


END GOOGLE QUOTE

"Alun" wrote in message
...
(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(Bert Craig) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
"Bert Craig" wrote in
t:

"Rupert" wrote in message
ink.net...
Len Over 21 wrote:

As of 6 PM EST on 11 November 2003, the number of ECFS
documents on public view a

What would be interesting is to find out how many are for the
change, and how many want to keep the code.

Me too. All this roundabout bravo sierra could be bypassed if
there was a ballot sent to all approx. 700,000 U.S. licensed
hams. As long as quorum is met, it's on! This concept (Democracy)
frightens the bejesus out of many folks who claim to speak for
those not yet licensed.

But that's an empty argument. Get licensed and vote, tah dah! The
big bad "barrier" does not preclude anyone from getting their
no-code Tech ticket and executing a vote.

Simply announce a "record date" by which one must be licensed (To
give those "yet to be licensed a fair shot at a voice in the
process.) and send a ballot out to all those licensed "of
record." Makes too much sense and requires some effort. IOW,
against the contemporary trend.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Those who have not obtained a licence because of the code trest are
just as entitled to express their opinion to the FCC as you or I.

I agree, Alun. The Technician license requires no code test.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


True, but some don't take it because they only want HF, not because
they couldn't answer the questions. All I'm saying is that they should
have a vote in any poll.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Hmm, sounds like a motivational issue. If you want HF, the road to the
General and Extra begins with the Technician exam...no matter what. If
they're truly "interested" in participating in participating in the
process of this change, you'd think the Tech exam would be...wait a
sec, lemme stop. I just remembered whom we're talking about. Kinda
sad. :-(

No, Alun. I really DO believe that Amateur Radio operators should
define Amateur Radio. What a concept, eh?

73 de Bert
WA2SI


Well, I guess that's a religeous issue

Alun, if this were a religeous issue I'd be trying to convince you that all
real hams must use the code. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.
I'm merely stating my beliefs re. the retention of the 5-wpm Morse code exam
a.k.a. Element 1 for HF privies.

, so I won't be able to convince you
otherwise.

Two years ago, I made a decision to get my AR license. I'd heard some
rumblings of a code vs. no-code debate, but I didn't care. I wanted my
ticket. I had precious little spare time between a new house, a newborn
child, (Our second.) and a promotion at the job along with the increased
responsibilities, but I didn't care. I wanted my ticket. My XYL also needed
help (read: "free labor") getting her business off the ground and that ate
up spare time as well, but I didn't care. I wanted my ticket.

See a recurring theme? I wanted my ticket.
1. Research the requirements.
2. Meet said requirements.
3. Enjoy the privileges that come from meeting said requirements.

I decided that I'd get up early each day and spend 15 to 20 mins. practicing
with the ARRL code CD's. Additionally, I managed to sneak in an evening or
two before turning in. It never occured to me that someone was oppressing me
by forcing me to do this. I viewed it as an investment in bettering myself.
All because...yep, you guessed it, I wanted my ticket.

So no, Alun. You will NEVER convince me that 5-wpm Morse code test is a
"barrier" to anyone. 13-wpm? Maybe 20-wpm? Yeah, very likely. However, 5-wpm
just isn't. Not because I (or anybody else) say(s) so, just because it
isn't. Ask a Handi-Ham. Now there's an example of "motivated" individuals.

If you look me up you'll see I'm an Extra, and you'll be able to figure
out that I passed 20 wpm.

Congratulations, that's a significant accomplishment.

What you won't see, is that I've been a ham
since 1980, not 1992, as I'm not originally from this country.

I kinda picked up on that from your website. Nice job, BTW.

However, ham radio is not a job or a vocation, just a hobby.

So? Some would disagree, but let's proceed on the premise that it's only a
hobby. (We'll ignore the service aspect.) Why sould we lower the standards
for our hobby?

I welcome the
unmotivated as much as I would welcome anyone else.

Why on Earth would one want to welcome the unmotivated? How many other
aspects of AR can we apply the "don't get in the way of my fun" mindset? How
about rules and regs, or gentleman's agreements re. voluntary bandplans, or
how 'bout them writtens? Why should I demonstrate knowledge of digital modes
when I'm only interested in running SSB?

Why shouldn't they
have fun too?

No one's preventing anybody from having fun. Ex. An AR lives in an antenna
resticted apartment and laments how his/her options are limited. I'd hang a
retractable wire from the window at night, run a counterpoise, and operate
40m CW QRP via a tuner in a heartbeat...all for about $200, less than many
dual-bander V/UHF h/t's. You know how 40 is at night, yes? So where's the
real limiting factor? Um hmm.

If someone wants HF and doesn't want to learn code, why
should they bother to study for a VHF and above licence, when they could
be scuba diving or building model railroads or what have you? (Not hobbies
of mine, personally, but whatever turns you on).

Thank you, Alun. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I know this is sacrilege
to true beleivers, but so what?

The notion that only hams should decide the future of ham radio is just
that, a notion. I can absolutely guarantee that it is not a point of view
shared by the FCC, and it makes little sense to me either. At the very
least all prospective hams have a vested interest, irregardless of the
reasons they don't have a licence, reasonable or otherwise. I'm sure the
FCC would cast their net a lot wider than that.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Gotta run for breakfast. It's cool to agree to disagree, Alun. Take care OM.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bill Sohl" wrote in
link.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
snip
Several countries around the world have moved, or are moving,
forward to
eliminate the Morse Code testing requirement while the United States
sits back and watches.

What's the count now?

I think they include at least the UK, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland,
the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Papua New Guinea and Australia
(not until Jan 1st). New Zealand may actually do it before Australia,
as they have said it would be before the end of the year, but have
given no date. I am pretty sure I have missed a couple out, too.

See the list at:

http://www.rsgb.org/licensing/nomorse.htm


OK - The RSGB list has UK, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Norway, the
Netherlands, Ireland, Singapore and Luxembourg. However, I'm also aware of
Papua New Guinea and Finland who have abolished the code test already,
Australia who have announced a date of Jan 1st, and New Zealand, who say
sometime before the new year (but no date). So that's actually 11 so far,
and at least 13 by the new year, probably more. I don't think we will know
which countries might keep a code test until at least July (i.e 12 months
after the ITU decision), and I don't think they will be a majority (?).

How many countries have eliminated the code test, vs. how many have
retained it so far?

Most do still retain it, but I think this has far more to do with
bureaucracy than intent

The changes to government regulations, in the USAand in many other
countries, take time. Did Jim expect an overnight change in the 100+
countries? Frankly, I'm pretty amazed at the ones that have been able
to do so on such a short time interval.

Is this the actions of a modern, progressive, country with feet
planted firmly on today and eyes on the future?

What does all that mean, exactly? Besides the removal of the last
remaining vestige of code testing?

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

Let's say that tomorrow FCC just dumps Element 1. One sentence:
"Element 1 is waived for all applicants, pending revision of the
rules". Could happen, y'know.

Bring it on!!!

Probably will

What happens next?

Lots of upgrades, plus no-coders on 10m the next day

Works for me. Anyone see a problem in that?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote:

So you assume that the goals and purposes
of the ARS are incompatible with any
code testing at all?


Yes.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

How you gonna educate them? Most people
wouldn't have a clue what we would be talking
about. Do you propose an education system
without either Pro or Anti-code bias?

(snip)

How are you going to approach anything like
a knowledgable poll pool?


Actually, I'm not proposing anything at all. In my opinion, the FCC is
doing a fine job of regulating the Amateur Radio Service. If someone is
going to propose a poll to influence that, then the poll should take into
account everything the FCC must take into account (that includes all
Americans, not just those currently licensed in a particular radio service).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bill Sohl" wrote:

Why Dwight, you doubt that all hams wouldn't
"vote" based on common sense, logic and
what is rational as a requirement in the 21st
century?? :-) :-)


Well.... No comment!


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

You haven't established, at least not to my
satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU,
FCC, and several countries around the
world), why Morse code is necessary
(notice I said necessary, not enjoyable)
for ham radio today.

You mean the code itself, or the test?


In the context of that sentence, code itself.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?


I meant to answer that in the last message. Anyway, it's time to move on
to something besides just endlessly debating the Morse Code testing
requirement. This debate has sharply divided the Amateur Radio community and
I think that alone is having a major impact on any attempts to further the
goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service (we can't discuss anything
without this topic constantly interfering).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

You haven't established, at least not to my
satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU,
FCC, and several countries around the
world), why Morse code is necessary
(notice I said necessary, not enjoyable)
for ham radio today.

You mean the code itself, or the test?


In the context of that sentence, code itself.



Just a few short weeks ago, auroral activity imposed so much distortion on
HF voice that it was not useable. At the same time, the distortion on the
HF computer operated digital modes was great enough that the computer could
not decipher them. Of the computer operated digital modes, the newest one,
PSK31, failed first. RTTY held up a bit longer but it also failed. Although
distortion on the HF CW/Morse signal also existed, the human brain version
of a computer could and did decipher the signals into intelligible, useful
data when all other modes were useless. The choice was operate code or turn
off the HF radio. If code is not necessary in ham radio today, then neither
is HF itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

You haven't established, at least not to my
satisfaction (nor the satisfaction of the ITU,
FCC, and several countries around the
world), why Morse code is necessary
(notice I said necessary, not enjoyable)
for ham radio today.

You mean the code itself, or the test?


In the context of that sentence, code itself.



Just a few short weeks ago, auroral activity imposed so much distortion on
HF voice that it was not useable. At the same time, the distortion on the
HF computer operated digital modes was great enough that the computer
could
not decipher them. Of the computer operated digital modes, the newest one,
PSK31, failed first. RTTY held up a bit longer but it also failed.
Although
distortion on the HF CW/Morse signal also existed, the human brain version
of a computer could and did decipher the signals into intelligible, useful
data when all other modes were useless. The choice was operate code or
turn
off the HF radio. If code is not necessary in ham radio today, then
neither
is HF itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



While I try to avoid posting to my own comments, I see that I need to add
additional information.

This phenomenon becomes more severe the further north that your station is.
It was quite noticeable here in Michigan but it would have been less severe
in places like South Carolina where QRZ shows Dwight lives. Southern
stations may merely have noticed the absence of northern stations on the air
if they noticed anything at all.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

It's time to move on, Jim.

To what?

I meant to answer that in the last message. Anyway, it's time to move on
to something besides just endlessly debating the Morse Code testing
requirement.

OK, fine. Let's do just that.

The issue will be decided one way or another by the FCC at some point
anyway.

This debate has sharply divided the Amateur Radio community

I don't see that at all in "real life" amateur radio outside
newsgroups and such.

and
I think that alone is having a major impact on any attempts to further the
goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service

We'll have to agree to disagree about that)

(we can't discuss anything
without this topic constantly interfering).

I say the opposite is true. We can try, anyway.

Here's a selection of topics:

- Regardless of code test requirements, should there continue to be
separate HF subbands for voice/image and cw/data modes in the USA?

- Is there a need to change the entry-level license requirements and
privileges?

- What can/should be done about CC&Rs?

- What can be done to increase the visibility of the ARS to the
general public?

- Are contests a good thing or a bad thing for the ARS?

- Is homebrewing by hams dead or dying?

- Should there be a minimum age requirement for a ham license?

- Should there be an experience requirement for upgrading?

- How many classes of ham license should exist, and what should the
requirements/privileges be (other than code test/no code test)?

Pick one or more, or sugghest your own, and let's go!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

- Regardless of code test requirements, should there continue to be
separate HF subbands for voice/image and cw/data modes in the USA?

Yes.

- Is there a need to change the entry-level license requirements and
privileges?

Yes. See http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for the needed change.

- What can/should be done about CC&Rs?

Hire a good lawyer.

- What can be done to increase the visibility of the ARS to the
general public?

Large antennas high in the sky.

- Are contests a good thing or a bad thing for the ARS?

Yes.

- Is homebrewing by hams dead or dying?

Yes.

- Should there be a minimum age requirement for a ham license?

No.

- Should there be an experience requirement for upgrading?

Yes.

- How many classes of ham license should exist, and what should the
requirements/privileges be (other than code test/no code test)?

Two classes. See http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for details.

OK, now that's all settled. What should we decide next?

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote

- Are contests a good thing or a bad thing for the ARS?

Yes.

That answer should have been "They are a GOOD thing for the ARS"

73, de Hans, K0HB
---
RadioSport Minnesota: http://www.w0aa.org

"KØHB" wrote:

"KØHB" wrote

- Are contests a good thing or a bad thing for the ARS?

Yes.

That answer should have been "They are a GOOD thing for the ARS"

73, de Hans, K0HB

Don't be too hasty, Hans. I'm a contester too and I think your first
answer may have hit the nail on the head.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

- Regardless of code test requirements, should there continue to be
separate HF subbands for voice/image and cw/data modes in the USA?

Yes.

Agreed!

- Is there a need to change the entry-level license requirements and
privileges?

Yes. See http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for the needed change.

Saw 'em. Wonder what others think?

- What can/should be done about CC&Rs?

Hire a good lawyer.

BEFORE you sign on the dotted line!

- What can be done to increase the visibility of the ARS to the
general public?

Large antennas high in the sky.

AGREED!


- Are contests a good thing or a bad thing for the ARS?

Yes.

(a good thing per followup post)

Agreed!

- Is homebrewing by hams dead or dying?

Yes.

Which is it? It's not dead at my house. Nor dying.


- Should there be a minimum age requirement for a ham license?

No.

Agreed/

- Should there be an experience requirement for upgrading?

Yes.

How much? No such requirement that I can see at

http://tinyurl.com/wce9

- How many classes of ham license should exist, and what should the
requirements/privileges be (other than code test/no code test)?

Two classes. See http://tinyurl.com/wce9 for details.

Been there, done that.

But how much experience? Looks like someone could waltz in and get a
full-privs ticket right away under that proposed system.

OK, now that's all settled. What should we decide next?

See what others think...

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

But how much experience? Looks like someone could waltz in and get a
full-privs ticket right away under that proposed system.

Then you didn't notice the following sentence

--- Holders of this license would be required to have 2 years experience as
a licensee ("time in grade") before being eligible to upgrade to "Class A".

73, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Just a few short weeks ago, auroral activity
imposed so much distortion on HF voice
that it was not useable. (snip)


Perhaps you mean HF voice was limited, not unusable. I wasn't aware that
all HF voice communications, including short range, was impossible during
that period. Regardless, a very temporary condition doesn't make a mode
itself necessary in the overall scheme of Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio
continued on during that period, even for those HF operators who simply
decided to turn the radio off or to other frequencies during that period. At
the same time, I heard no reports of emergency services, or other similar
Amateur Radio activities, being seriously disrupted.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Just a few short weeks ago, auroral activity
imposed so much distortion on HF voice
that it was not useable. (snip)


Perhaps you mean HF voice was limited, not unusable. I wasn't aware that
all HF voice communications, including short range, was impossible during
that period. Regardless, a very temporary condition doesn't make a mode
itself necessary in the overall scheme of Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio
continued on during that period, even for those HF operators who simply
decided to turn the radio off or to other frequencies during that period.
At
the same time, I heard no reports of emergency services, or other similar
Amateur Radio activities, being seriously disrupted.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


For local communications, one has many choices and although one could use HF
there are better frequencies for that and experienced hams know that. The
choice for local work is generally going to be VHF. So when hams are
talking about HF propagation and usage, they are talking about other than
local communications.

Long distance HF voice was unusable during that time for many locations (the
north is affected worse by auroral but geomagnetic disturbances seem to have
an equal effect everywhere). Such "temporary conditions" can happen several
times a year. If one wants or needs to make other than local contacts then
yes code is necessary. We've had several such occurrences in the last
month. Auroral conditions and other items like geomagnetic storms can
affect all the HF frequencies simultaneously. So for long distance
communications under such conditions, changing bands or frequencies within
HF is often of little help. Yes one could turn off the radio if they didn't
know code but why place that limit on one's self? If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that code is indeed necessary whether
or not it is an emergency.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...

--- Holders of this license would be required to have 2 years experience as
a licensee ("time in grade") before being eligible to upgrade to "Class A".

Works for me!

Would any sort of radio license count, or only amateur licenses?

Would the experience have to be current? (not "my license expired 5 years ago")

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Would any sort of radio license count, or only amateur licenses?

Would the experience have to be current? (not "my license expired 5 years
ago")

My inclination would be amateur experience only (insert here LHA and LHA(jg)
rotors being spun up in mock indignation), and experience need not be
current.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote


DO you really think it's mock indignation?


No other explanation is believeable.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

Even further back (70 years) the old Class A required a year's
experience.

Everything old is new again.

Even further back (in 1919) the old Amateur First Grade was required to pass
a 10WPM test in Continental Morse

Even even further back (in 1913) the old Amateur First Grade was required to
pass a 5WPM test in Continental Morse

Even even even further back (in 1912) the old Amateur First Grade "must be
able to transmit and receive in Continental Morse, but no speed rate will be
prescribed." (Presumably 1 word per fortnight was sufficient.)

Everything old is new again.

Sunuvagun!

de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public
services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a
necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last
two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion.

B. No you missed the point. My point is that if you want to communicate
then code can sometimes be necessary. I was not discussing emergency coms.
I was discussing the pursuit of my hobby. I believe in minimizing the
impact that propagation has on MY choice of when to participate in that
hobby. The "choice" of turning off the radio simply because of not knowing
code is not really a choice and is unacceptable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

OK, fine.

Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities.

And the same can be said for any particular technologies used by hams.
For example, there is no absolute necessity to use a PLL-type
synthesized rig. It's just an operator choice.

If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own.

If one wants to use any other mode or technology, one can do so by
learning
it on his/her own.

It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.

Then it logically follows that it is not necessary for the goals and
purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that
learning through a
testing requirement.

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Can you prove otherwise?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

..... any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport event this weekend from
W0SOC, and later from W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in order
to participate.

With warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

..... any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a necessity.

I'll be participating in the CQWW CW RadioSport event this weekend from
W0SOC, and later from W0AIH. It is a necessity that I know Morse in order
to participate.

With warm personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

Please give me an idea of what freqs you'll frequent. Having just moved into
our new QTH, I have nothing substantial really set up yet, however, I'd love
to toss a wire up in one of the trees and let the autotuner in the K1 handle
the rest. (Don't know if 5 Watts'll do it, but am more than game to try.)
Take care and have a Happy Thanksgiving. :-)

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

Hans,

Please give me an idea of what freqs you'll frequent. Having just moved
into
our new QTH, I have nothing substantial really set up yet, however, I'd
love
to toss a wire up in one of the trees and let the autotuner in the K1
handle
the rest. (Don't know if 5 Watts'll do it, but am more than game to try.)

Look for W0SOC Friday evening and all day Sunday on whatever bands are open
to DX.

Look for W0AIH all weekend on every band 160-10 (less WARC AND 60M).

But since this is a DX event, WA2SI is a zero-point QSO.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Jim,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

Jim,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Given some of the things I've read on the internet I'm not so sure that it
is a reductio ad absurdum argument. We may actually be heading inexorably
in that direction.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public
services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a
necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the last
two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this discussion.

B. No you missed the point. My point is that if you want to communicate
then code can sometimes be necessary. I was not discussing emergency
coms.
I was discussing the pursuit of my hobby. I believe in minimizing the
impact that propagation has on MY choice of when to participate in that
hobby. The "choice" of turning off the radio simply because of not
knowing
code is not really a choice and is unacceptable.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I presume YOU mean it is "unacceptable" to YOU. It is perfectly acceptable
to me and many others. It is, clearly, a personal choice and that is as it
should be. It is the type of thing I am Thankfull for on
Thanksgiving...i.e.
we live in a country that allows for such individual opinions and choices.

Cheers and don't eat too much tomorrow :-) burp
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

DO you really think it's mock indignation?

No other explanation is believeable.

HAW! That's a good one!

Doesn't all that mock indignation begin to remind you of Jonathan
Harris' role as "Dr. Smith" on the old TV show "Lost In Space"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) If one wants or needs to make other
than local contacts then yes code is
necessary. (snip) If the choice is to turn
off the radio or use code then I'd say that
code is indeed necessary whether or not
it is an emergency.


I think you missed the point. Other than the emergency or public
services
we offer, any contact whatsoever is an avocation, not a necessity.
Therefore, any mode needed to facilitate that would also not be a
necessity.
If one wants to use code during those periods, one can do so by
learning
code on his/her own. It is not necessary for the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate that learning through a
testing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

A. I was discussing the USE of code itself not the testing. So the
last
two sentences in the above paragraph are not relevant to this
discussion.

B. No you missed the point. My point is that if you want to
communicate
then code can sometimes be necessary. I was not discussing emergency
coms.
I was discussing the pursuit of my hobby. I believe in minimizing the
impact that propagation has on MY choice of when to participate in that
hobby. The "choice" of turning off the radio simply because of not
knowing
code is not really a choice and is unacceptable.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I presume YOU mean it is "unacceptable" to YOU. It is perfectly
acceptable
to me and many others. It is, clearly, a personal choice and that is as
it
should be. It is the type of thing I am Thankfull for on
Thanksgiving...i.e.
we live in a country that allows for such individual opinions and choices.

Cheers and don't eat too much tomorrow :-) burp
Bill K2UNK

I was simply countering the argument that code itself is unnecessary. As
long as there are people who do not want to turn off the radio when
conditions are poor, code will continue to be necessary for those people.
Yes it is unacceptable to me to be so constrained.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your
argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary
for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point
to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement.

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

So far the only people I see "making fun" of Jim Miccolis are
those who cannot adequately argue the topic being debated, Hans.
There ARE those who make an arguement that the Amateur Radio
license should be nothing more than an expensive permit. It's been
archived here, Hans, and remains an "on-the-fringe" concept, but worse
ideas have made it into law.

As you are well aware, part of the FCC's Basis and Purpose of the
Amateur Radio Service is an expectation of technical learning. We are
effectively eliminating much of the "skill" reqirements, so how hard a
stretch is it to see some element of society arguing to eliminate any
technical knowledge, too...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ