"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

73, Hans, K0HB

None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the
pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike button.
Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck
typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon once
they have acquired the equipment. The skill requirement to operate other
modes is insignificant. I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Hans also seems to be basing his idea
on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where
did you read such off-target drivel? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class. That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.


(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)


The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers
dead center in the mainstream of amateur
radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY
other licensee, just at a more modest power
level of 50watts. (snip)


More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one. As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written. Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.

And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)


I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes of the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement, how is
Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational use is not
sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement (recreational use
is equally applicable to all modes and they don't have a unique testing
requirement).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future.


(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)


In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio license
exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn Morse skills in
order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those same people already
posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is required to
use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse
elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most vociferous
and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates, and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly?

Not at all. Just that all those things (except RF exposure estimate) were
optional and your choice, determined by the technologies you decided to use.

And most of them were not on your license tests. You figured out how to do them
as a matter of practical necessity, not to pass a test.

Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the future.

(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)

In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.

I've set up a complete Field Day station in much less than an afternoon. Again,
almost none of the skills needed were on the license tests.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"KØHB" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Hans also seems to be basing his idea
on the faulty premise that one must
advance in license class to learn.....

I don't support that premise at all. Where
did you read such off-target drivel? (snip)


Well, lets see where I could have gotten that from. First, you propose a
non-renewable license with a specific time limit to upgrade to a higher
license class.

Just like the old Novice class license that brought hundreds of thousands of
new hams into amateur radio. Hans' proposal recycles that old idea.

That certainly fits what I said. Second, you justify the
entire proposal by claiming the current tests are "not adequate to insure a
high level of expertise in new applicants." This introduces the idea of
raising the level of learning. And, finally, you set the license test all
must take to upgrade at "a difficulty level similar to the current Extra
class test." Those three together only suggest one thing - you don't think
the lower class operators today re knowledgeable enough, you feel all should
be forced to improve on that, and you offer the most difficult license test
available today as the sole means to accomplish it. Perhaps you can explain
where I'm wrong in that.

Looks right to me. Point is, newcomers would have a decade to do so.

(snip) My plan calls for a very simplified
license structure of a broad-privileged
learners permit (snip)

The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all. You
introduced the proposal by claiming the current tests "are not adequate to
insure a high level of expertise in new applicants." But you later propose a
greatly simplified test for those new applicants (much more basic than
today's Technician test). How can you "insure a high level of expertise in
new applicants" by offering a even more simplified test?

The idea isn't that they'll have a high level of expertise right off, but that
they'll reach that level through the 'incentive' of having to either upgrade or
leave the air.

On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers
dead center in the mainstream of amateur
radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY
other licensee, just at a more modest power
level of 50watts. (snip)

More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one.

Sure. But at the same time, they will have all frequencies and all modes.
That's a pretty significant increase.

As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written.

Right now, Technicians can gain almost all priviliges by passing the General
written (only 35 questions) and the 5 wpm code receiving test. Been that way
for almost three years.

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.

Exactly.

But they would have 10 years to do it.

In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which was
split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a permanent/renewable
license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.

Yup!

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.

I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal, Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode
which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

73, Hans, K0HB

None of the other modes requires any skill at all beyond connecting the
pieces per the diagrams and typing on the keyboard or pushing a mike
button.
Although typing is a skill, it is not radio specific and the hunt & peck
typist gets by. Virtually anyone can put set up & run in an afternoon
once
they have acquired the equipment.

One can also use morse code with a "decoding" sheet to send and
recieve at very slow speeds,

The skill requirement to operate other
modes is insignificant.

The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at
other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always
seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above
even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck"
via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet"
to send and receive morse at slow speeds.

I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard
at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any
skill level at all, but it is.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC.
http://tinyurl.com/wce9

It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses
that are a bit bothersome.

That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save
some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put
on their transmitters.

If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot
shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective
class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two.

But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an
absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade
so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So
they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means
nothing to them - save keeping their license.

I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best
ideas ever abandoned by the FCC.

A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a
pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't
processing costs.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

Wow. Good point, Dwight. Maybe that
idea of a term limitation license makes more
sense than ever. I haven't been in favor of
it...but maybe there's a part of it I haven't
thought of, such as your comment above.


Learning is one aspect of the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio
Service, not the total sum. When discussing term limits on license class,
all aspects of that should be considered. And, when it comes to those
other
aspects, there is no real benefit from term limits. Indeed, one could
argue
that it may actually harm those other things (reducing our overall
numbers,
for example).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Well, what I would support would be something like a pretty simple test--I
mean darned simple--with a minimal operating privilege built in with it. At
the end of something like a year or 2 years, then one would either have to
upgrade with a more technical and knowledge-based test and a higher,
permanent license class. I still would leave CW out of the mix, too...

However, I don't think there's going to be any major changes to the
licensing or testing structure for another couple of years. Jim, I think it
was, had a thread going with the predictions of when CW would be taken out
and I think I had a couple of years while others were guessing pretty quick.
I think CW testing is here to stay for a while.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY wrote:

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

snippage

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar, out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.


Exactly.

But they would have 10 years to do it.

In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which was
split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a permanent/renewable
license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^) I would
have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow
the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills
rather than learn the writtens of the time. So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.

For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be
limits, they should be reasonable ones.


And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


Yup!

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal, Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. A
forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does
public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going
to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage.
Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is
that this proposal is very HF-centric.

And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee,
just at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Well, no matter what Hans believes on this, power level enforcement or even
monitoring just can't be done--unless there'd be a whole lot more dollars
and effort going to it and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kim W5TIT

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes of
the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement, how is
Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational use is not
sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement (recreational
use
is equally applicable to all modes and they don't have a unique testing
requirement).


Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I speak
from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had? How much
weak signal VHF experience have you had? Again keep in mind that I have
said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that testing should be
maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at this time and you keep
trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating that Morse code itself is
necessary.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

None of the other modes requires any skill
at all beyond connecting the pieces per the
diagrams and typing on the keyboard or
pushing a mike button. (snip)


Really? You mean all those things I did to get a properly operating
station (putting coax and connectors together, waterproofing, antenna
tuning, SWR tests, ground radials, masts, guy wires, wiring a microphone,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, RF exposure level estimates,
and
so on) wasn't really needed and didn't really require any skills to do
properly? Well, I guess I'll just forget about all that stuff in the
future.


Soldering requires some modest skill but one can hire that done if desired.
The other items are necessary but no skill is required just taking the time
to do it.


(snip) Virtually anyone can put set up & run in
an afternoon once they have acquired the
equipment. (snip)


In an afternoon? You mean I wasted all those days it took to get
everything in my station working just right, not counting all the time
I've
spent fiddling around to get even better performance since then. Well,
you're obviously a much more gifted operator than I am.


Doesn't require a gift merely knowing what to do and when to do it. Most
people don't try to set up the station and all the options at once. They
generally work at it in stages gaining experience as the go.

You will find that most experienced hams could set up a complete station,
including antennas, digital modes etc within a matter of hours. Many do so
for single station operation in Field Day.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode
which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio
license
exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn Morse
skills in
order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those same people already
posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is
required to
use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who have learned Morse
elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers some of the most
vociferous
and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are trying to
say but not finding the right words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
[snip]
The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at
other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always
seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above
even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck"
via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet"
to send and receive morse at slow speeds.


No 5wpm is useful just a tedious for the listener. Learning it to a
higher speed simply makes it easier to communicate and increases the
probability that the person will not forget his/her code over time.

However, using a "cheat sheet" won't even let you go 5wpm as it takes too
long to look up the letters.

I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience
with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard
at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any
skill level at all, but it is.


In today's world, most people have to learn that skill at a minimmal anyway
whether or not they wish to be radio Amateurs so do not include that as
something unique to Amateur Radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee,
just at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, You and I know it can't be enforced without invasion of privacy. You
have to go on the operator's property and make local field strength
measurements. Just reading the signal strength from another station won't
do it as we've all experienced working a QRP station when propagation was
good and receiving them at 10 over S9.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"KØHB" writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you have acquired a basic
skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode
which you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

What's unique is that most people old enough to pass the amateur radio
license exams do not already have Morse skills, and will have to learn
Morse skills in order to use the mode. But the vast majority of those
same people already posess the skills to use other modes.

So what it comes down to is that a little serious skill-learning is
required to use Morse on the air, except for a very few people who
have learned Morse elsewhere. I think that plain, simple fact bothers
some of the most vociferous and abusive anti-code-test folks.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent summary there, Jim. I think that is what many of us are
trying to say but not finding the right words.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have
the desire to use the skill. Learning the theory of modes you don't want
to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone
would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use
phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is
reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter. Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty,
but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

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


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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Morse code is uniquely necessary. (snip)


Saying so doesn't make it true, Dee. Within the goals and purposes
of the
Amateur Radio Service, and to justify a unique testing requirement,
how is Morse code uniquely necessary today? Do remember recreational
use is not sufficient enough to justify a unique testing requirement
(recreational use is equally applicable to all modes and they don't
have a unique testing requirement).


Well Dwight saying it isn't doesn't make that true either Dwight. I
speak from personal experience. How much HF experience have you had?
How much weak signal VHF experience have you had? Again keep in mind
that I have said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that
testing should be maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at
this time and you keep trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating
that Morse code itself is necessary.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I don't know about Dwight, but I use HF a lot, and I have done weak signal
work on VHF in the past. For the former I have never found CW to be
necessary, as it has never been necessary that I make any particular QSO.
As for the latter, I have never even heard any CW above 30 MHz, except
repeater IDs! This includes VHF contests. You may be using it, but I guess
I can't hear your sigs.

In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Why is such a written test necessary? The
use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.

Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the
overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when
using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly
obvious.

No, it isn't.

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.

Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use
is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf
cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM,
SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*?

Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety
*necessary*?

Or consider this:

Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above
30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the
successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact,
almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to
get a Tech license.

Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure,
the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well
as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the
additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a
Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full
authorized power?

Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test?

Sure. Here goes:

Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of
frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who
use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations
and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code
exam is clearly obvious.

There you go.

Prove the necessity for a written test beyond
the most basic rules and regulations.

I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous
message and in the paragraph above.

No, you haven't. You've explained why *a* written test on the most basic rules
and regulations is desirable, and maybe even necessary, not why we must
have the written tests we have today..

Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must
go beyond those basics.


Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which
tests to keep and which to get rid of.

This is a
discussion about the code test.

Sure. And I've shown that if the same criteria you are using to justify dumping
the code test can also be used to justify dumping almost all of the content of
the written tests.

And so far I haven't seen anything to disprove my argument. Just "it's
obvious".

I have no desire to expand that into a
discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams.

I can understand why.

Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all.

So you really don't have a counter argument when someone doesn't find it
obvious.

Therefore, there is nothing to prove.

Just the opposite.

If what matters is the learning that happens
*after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss
about written tests?

Read my first paragraph above.

I have. Doesn't answer my question.

I don't want the written tests to go away or be watered down further. But I
cannot come
up with solid counterarguments *rpoving* that all of their content is
necessary. And I
suspect that others can't, either - or they would present those arguments.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:


On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just
at
a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?

Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty,
but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

Which is why in an emergency situation, if voice is unusable, I would pick
CW rather than RTTY, PSK31, etc. There are more ops out there listening and
although some are rusty on their code since they don't use it much they
could still help even if the code had to be sent really slowly.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it and
found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to
licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely lacking in any
pertinent application to the process of amateur radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM. There's
nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of HF are
really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring up a
key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging myself? I
don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met people who
don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article k.net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

snippage

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even
higher
(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar,
out
they go - their non-renewable license is gone.

Exactly.

But they would have 10 years to do it.

In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which
was
split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a
permanent/renewable
license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^)

Watta concept!

I would
have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow
the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills
rather than learn the writtens of the time.

You suspect wrong!

The old Novice was meant as a learner's permit for both the code and written -
in fact, more for the written than the code. A Novice could upgrade to Tech
with no more written skills (both licenses always required just 5 wpm code).
But upgrading to *any* permanent/renewable license required the
General/Tech/Conditional written test, which was much more involved than the
old Novice written.

The old Novice privileges included 2 meters (145-147 MHz) code and AM voice
(until 1967). The idea was that some Novices would go on to General and others
to Tech, depending on whether they were primarily interested in HF or VHF.

So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.

The idea is that the jump will be all the way to Extra-level written testing.
The ten-year term is meant to be a generous allotment of time, plus the current
license term is ten years.

For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be
limits, they should be reasonable ones.

Why is 10 years unreasonable? I recall Hans saying that if someone can't or
won't reach the level required for a full-privs license in 10 years, they
probably aren't that interested. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that, Hans).

And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


Yup!

It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal,
Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be
allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.

Hans' proposal would not affect any existing hams' privileges. Those with
existing licenses other than Extra could keep them, renew them and modify them
as long as they retain interest. Existing Techs could stay Tech forever - no
problem.

A
forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does
public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going
to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage.
Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is
that this proposal is very HF-centric.

They wouldn't have to change anything.

But it only applies to existing hams. Newbies might get ticked off that the
same options weren't open to them.

And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.

What stops me from running 5 kW? or more than the allowed power on 30 meters or
the Novice bands?

73 de Jim, N2EY

I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW.

No problem ....

nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to licensing in
amateur radio.

Evil .... Satan is evil .... I find no mention of CW in the Bible being the
preferred mode of the anti-Christ ....

I also found it uniquely lacking in any pertinent
application to the process of amateur radio, overall.

Pertenent as of pertaining to ...I suggest Kim that you turn on your
receiver and listen to the CW activity that is there ...albeit contesting.
Wall to wall signals and on 30 meters essentially likewise for those who
don't contest. I really get tired of the old CW is dead ...AKA pertinent to
ham radio. Especially since the squashing of this myth is just a turn of
the knob away for those who have the ambition to do so instead of repeating
untrue crap.

CW is a wonderful skill to have if one enjoys communicating with it.

What you don't use you loose but in a lot of ops cases they will never loose
it because they never had it to begin with ...... therein lies the real
sadness.

God Bless 73 Tom Popovic KI3R Belle Vernon Pa

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


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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of
HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring
up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging
myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met
people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so
happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use
it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement
that is laughable.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

KØHB wrote:

A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC.
http://tinyurl.com/wce9

It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses
that are a bit bothersome.

That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save

some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put
on their transmitters.

Why would it be any more complex than what we have now?

And in the old days, there was no big deal about enforcing Novices' use of no
more than 75 watts input and crystal control.

If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot

shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective
class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two.

Maybe not! Look how many Tech Pluses are still on the books today, even though
for the past 42 months they've been able to upgrade with just a single written
- or in many cases, no test at all. And the number of Tech Pluses has also been
dropping by renewals as Techs.....

But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an

absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade
so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So
they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means
nothing to them - save keeping their license.

The same was true in the old days if a ham simply wanted to operate in the
Novice bands with xtal control and 75 watts...

When incentive licensing was reinstituted in 1968, a lot of hams had to upgrade
just to do what they'd been doing for years.

I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best
ideas ever abandoned by the FCC.

Me too, but it's an uphill climb to get it back.

A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a
pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't
processing costs.

The big problem is that the license won't expire even if its holder does. The
database will contain more and more entries of long-dead or lost-interest hams.


Perhaps that's part of Hans' plan - the number of hams with that class of
license will grow and grow and grow...

FCC will cancel a license if proper paperwork is done. Usually this takes the
form of a family member sending in a death certificate so that the SK's call
can be reassigned to a friend, club or relative.

Given the 10 year license term and such things as online renewal, I don't see
renewal costs as a big line item in the FCC budget.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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


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


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did
not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of
HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring
up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging
myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met
people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so
happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use
it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement
that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older
but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight
under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight
than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:



On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of
amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just

at

a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams
too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment
manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article k.net,

"Dwight

Stewart" writes:

snippage

Your proposal
would intentionally take that away by setting the bar to upgrade even

higher

(the Extra class test). And, if newcomers fail to reach that higher bar,

out

they go - their non-renewable license is gone.



Exactly.



But they would have 10 years to do it.



In the bad old days, a new ham had to pass the old General written (which

was

split into the Tech and General writtens in 1987) to get a

permanent/renewable

license of any class. The old Novice was meant as a learning tool, not a
permanent license.

Just because an idea was old, doesn't mean it wasn't bad! 8^)


Watta concept!

Thought you would like that.....

I would
have to suspect that the old Novice non-renewable was probably to allow
the prospective "permanent" ham to hone his or her Morse CW skills
rather than learn the writtens of the time.


You suspect wrong!

The old Novice was meant as a learner's permit for both the code and written -
in fact, more for the written than the code. A Novice could upgrade to Tech
with no more written skills (both licenses always required just 5 wpm code).
But upgrading to *any* permanent/renewable license required the
General/Tech/Conditional written test, which was much more involved than the
old Novice written.

The old Novice privileges included 2 meters (145-147 MHz) code and AM voice
(until 1967). The idea was that some Novices would go on to General and others
to Tech, depending on whether they were primarily interested in HF or VHF.

Perhaps I am looking at it from a different view, because of my
difficulties with Morse, but from what I've seen, the new tests aren't
that hard - and well, what I've been able to glean is that the old tests
were'nt that har either. So I may be a prejudiced observer. But how many
people needed all that time to prepare for the writtens? And wasn't the
General 12 wpm?


So the big question is what
is going to be different about this new class gap that ten years is an
appropriate time lag.


The idea is that the jump will be all the way to Extra-level written testing.
The ten-year term is meant to be a generous allotment of time, plus the current
license term is ten years.

For a hobby, ten years is just too long a time. If there are going to be
limits, they should be reasonable ones.


Why is 10 years unreasonable? I recall Hans saying that if someone can't or
won't reach the level required for a full-privs license in 10 years, they
probably aren't that interested. (Correct me if I'm mistaken on that, Hans).

Because they will probably be disinterested a lot sooner than ten years.
Why not three? Why not one? Why not make the sorry you're out date the
same time as the time in grade?



And if this isn't all about assigning newcomers to a subordinate class,
why don't you change the names of those new licenses you propose - Class A
for the entry license class and Class B for the other license class? As it
is, it's clear only someone who has taken an Extra class-like test can be a
"Class A" Amateur Radio Operator.


Yup!


It's clear to me that you haven't even taken
the time to read the proposal I've made to
the FCC. (snip)

I've read the proposal and what you've said about the proposal in this
newsgroup. I stand by what I've said here and in the previous message.


I think you missed the major contradiction/paradox of Hans' proposal,

Dwight.

He proposes a simplified test for the LP license, yet all LPs would be
allowed
all frequencies and modes.

So the simplified test has to be adequate for the LPs to use all freqs and
modes - just not full power.

How can a simplifed test do that?

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


Hans' proposal would not affect any existing hams' privileges. Those with
existing licenses other than Extra could keep them, renew them and modify them
as long as they retain interest. Existing Techs could stay Tech forever - no
problem.

It is most *certainly* a problem with new hams who have the same goals
as those who are happy being technicians now.

So we get rid of Morse code because of the poor souls who are kept out
of it because it is there, and then we force them to upgrade because of
why? We kick them out because of why?

And there it is. WHY?

If a ham is perfectly capable of operating on HF at 10 years licensing,
whay is he/she not qualified at 10 years and one day?

WHY? It's arbitrary, and unfair. and in the end, a touch absurd.

A
forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does
public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going
to be very popular with them. And "they" are a pretty large percentage.
Yes of course that is among people already licensed, but my point is
that this proposal is very HF-centric.


They wouldn't have to change anything.

But it only applies to existing hams. Newbies might get ticked off that the
same options weren't open to them.

Uh-huh! The old Techs get to keep their licenses forever, (do they have
to reregister after ten years, or are they techs forever with no renewal
if they want to be) but the new class B's are this long-term one-shot deal.


And if the simplified test *is* adequate, why should the higher-class test
require more than the additional stuff needed to run high power?

And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


What stops me from running 5 kW? or more than the allowed power on 30 meters or
the Novice bands?

Go ahead and fire up that 5kW station! I bet you can be found fairly
quickly.

But seriously, the really big difference is that for you to run 5 kW,
you have to do something above and beyond the ordinary, like put
together or purchase an amplifier, tuner, and the like.

Class B person simply has to turn that little RF power knob up past 50
watts. Perhaps the manufacturers will be forced to limit the output
power to 50 watts?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:


A straightforward plan is already written and in the hands of the FCC.
http://tinyurl.com/wce9

It really isn't too bad a plan, although there are a few weaknesses
that are a bit bothersome.

That 50 watt limit for the class B license is simply unenforcable, save


some sort of training wheel governor device that they would have to put
on their transmitters.


Why would it be any more complex than what we have now?

And in the old days, there was no big deal about enforcing Novices' use of no
more than 75 watts input and crystal control.

I think the old days were a bit different than today.

I don't think that people drove thier cars 30-35 miles per hour over
the speed limit as a routine thing. We just opend a new double laned
road in the area. Has a 40 mph speed limit. The first day, there were
something like ten people pulled over for going 75 mph and up on it. The
local bypass is 55. I am regularly passed by cars going 100 mph. At
least twice every trip. I'm going 70 and I'm a target. Going the speed
limit is tantamount to suicide.

My point is that if the radio can do 100 watts, that's where they are
going to put it. And that being the case, forgo the useless regulation.


If you want to put a time limit on upgrading, it really should be a lot


shorter, like 3 years. Ten years is simply way too long. The prospective
class A Ham almost certainly will upgrade in a year or two.


Maybe not! Look how many Tech Pluses are still on the books today, even though
for the past 42 months they've been able to upgrade with just a single written
- or in many cases, no test at all. And the number of Tech Pluses has also been
dropping by renewals as Techs.....

And this hurts what?

But I still don't like the idea of a forced retirement. It brings up an


absurdity like a person that operates exclusivly QRP having to upgrade
so that he/she is now allowed to use 1.5 kW. That's all they get. So
they are forced to upgrade and spend money for something that means
nothing to them - save keeping their license.


The same was true in the old days if a ham simply wanted to operate in the
Novice bands with xtal control and 75 watts...

Perhaps, but it doesn't make it any less absurd.

When incentive licensing was reinstituted in 1968, a lot of hams had to upgrade
just to do what they'd been doing for years.

Is this like 3 lefts make a right? 8^)


I really do like the idea of "time in grade". It is one of the best
ideas ever abandoned by the FCC.


Me too, but it's an uphill climb to get it back.

A lifetime grant license? Well, I'm not too sure. I guess it is a
pretty good thing. If you don't have to renew it, there aren't
processing costs.


The big problem is that the license won't expire even if its holder does. The
database will contain more and more entries of long-dead or lost-interest hams.

True enough, kind of like JA

Perhaps that's part of Hans' plan - the number of hams with that class of
license will grow and grow and grow...

FCC will cancel a license if proper paperwork is done. Usually this takes the
form of a family member sending in a death certificate so that the SK's call
can be reassigned to a friend, club or relative.

Given the 10 year license term and such things as online renewal, I don't see
renewal costs as a big line item in the FCC budget.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.

And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.

I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.

There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

you feel all should
be forced to improve on that

Nope, not at all. Under my proposal you'd be free to keep renewing
your Technician (what a misnomer!) license until you assume room
temperature.

The test proposal for new applicants makes the least sense of all.


More modest power levels? That 50 watts you propose is 1,450 watts less
than what Technicians can use today. That's a pretty significant hit, not a
modest one.

Technicians could continue to renew their current license until they
assume room temperature.

As for privileges, once the code test is gone, Technicians can
gain considerable HF privileges by taking the General written.

My proposal would allow them a transition period to do just that.
Then they could continue to renew their no-code General test until
they assumed room temperature.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Considering the power levels, the number
of frequencies and bands, the overall
safety considerations, (snip)

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.


No, you just don't like the answer given. If anything, I'm ignoring a
fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance
to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below).


Since you keep asking this, do you
have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double
standard when deciding which tests to keep
and which to get rid of.


The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for
all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either
have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.
That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and
instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written
tests. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today. None here, including you, have said
otherwise. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion
about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion
cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard
exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your
message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged
trying to make.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote

And it has the unique characteristic that
you can't take advantage of it until you
have acquired a basic skill level.

Unique? What's unique about Morse in that regard. There is no mode which
you can use without some basic skill level in that mode.

73, Hans, K0HB

There's no cheat sheet for learning Morse code. If and when someone decideds
to do it, they must rise up off their kiester and "learn" it. Herein lies
the burr in the saddle.

No matter how much more difficult the writtens become, as long as the Q&A
pool are published, passing a written element will continue to require no
more than a study guide and a highlighter...and perhaps a day or two of
"study." Notice I didn't say "learn" the material in order to pass.

This is why some folks consider it a filter. It's been said it filters out
lids, CBers, etc...but in reality, it only filters out those who are not
motivated enough to make the effort in the first place.

Decode Morse code with a decoding chart at very slode speeds? Possible...not
realistic, but possible.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have
the desire to use the skill.

Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already
aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT
leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one
may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any
further.

The majority of newbies I've worked sent at approx. 8 to 10-wpm. (That's
right, just below the plateau.) We seem to gravitate to one another. Ok, the
Novice/Tech"+" sub-bands help bring us together. My point is that those who
actually get OTA are putting in more effort than needed just to pass Element
1. Those who pass Element 1 and wish to go no further with CW have made a
truly educated dicision because they now have a little "practical"
experience with the mode under their belt on which to base their
decision...and are not just simply talking from their @$$!

Learning the theory of modes you don't want
to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone
would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use
phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is
reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter.

As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the
having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch
the whining escalate.

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty,
but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

You may have just touched on a selling point for CW.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) Again keep in mind that I have said
Morse is necessary. While I happen to
believe that testing should be maintained that
is NOT the point I am debating at this time
and you keep trying to drag it back to testing.
I am stating that Morse code itself is necessary.


We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the code testing
debate, Dee. That is why this mode is being discussed as opposed to some
other mode or discussions about the weather. I've acknowledged that Morse
code is enjoyable, entertaining, useful, and perhaps even necessary for you
to make some of the contacts you want to make. But we're not just talking
about you or the contacts you want to make. Your communications are
recreational or avocational in nature, not a necessity. And, as long as your
communications are not necessary, your use of Morse code in those
communications is not necessary.

This brings us back to the code testing debate. If Morse code is not
necessary to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service today,
Morse code testing should be eliminated. The _use_ of Morse code not an
issue here. You will still be able to use that mode when you find it
necessary to make the contacts you want. Others will still be able to learn
code if they want. But the test itself, as a license requirement, should
end.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"Alun" wrote in message
...
It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as
eloquently as you.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote:

(snip) And most of them were not on your
license tests. You figured out how to do
them as a matter of practical necessity, not
to pass a test. (snip)


Actually, most of them (coax, connectors, antenna tuning, SWR tests,
equipment grounding, lightning protection, and RF exposure level estimates)
were in the Novice/Technician question pool I studied (7/1/97~7/1/01
version). Just glancing through the question pool, here are some of the
related questions I stumbled across...

N4A06 ~ N4A11 - Station & antenna grounding
T4A08 ~ T4A16 - Station & antenna grounding
N4C01 ~ N4C11 - SWR measurements
T9B09 ~ T9B12 - SWR measurements
N4A04 ~ N4A05 - Lightning protection
N9A09 ~ N9A13 - Antenna tuning
N9C01 ~ N9C12 - Feed lines (coax and others)
T9C01 ~ T9C03 - Connectors
N0B01 ~ N0C27 - RF Safety (exposure levels)
T0A01 ~ T0C22 - RF Safety (exposure levels)

The study guide I used (Now You're Talking!) pretty much covered the rest
(waterproofing, ground radials, masts, guy wires, and so on). Of course, I
then had to transfer that written information into real world applications.


I've set up a complete Field Day station in
much less than an afternoon. (snip)


Most of us have set up in remote locations, for various purposes.


Again, almost none of the skills needed were
on the license tests.


If true, you must have taken some really basic tests back when you got
your license years ago. The test I took seems much more comprehensive than
what you describe.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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