In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

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

Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

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?

What is there to prove?

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

For example, Technicians are allowed to use all authorized modes on the six
meter band at up to 1500 W output. This includes all modes allowed on the HF/MF
bands. Therefore, the Technician test must, by definition, be adequate to
insure that those who pass it are qualified on all authorized HF/MF modes and
the use of transmitters up to 1500 W output on six meters MHz.

Since the hazards of RF exposure on HF/MF are less than those on 50 MHz, and
the modes authorized on HF/MF are a subset of those authorized on six, it
logically follows that those who pass the Tech test are *mostly* qualified to
operate HF/MF. The exceptions are those few things which are specific to HF/MF,
such as propagation.

But the General and Extra writtens go far beyond HF/MF propagation in their
technical material. Why is that stuff necessary?

Isn't that exactly the intent of the license
exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and
regulations, and so on.

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

When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a
school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when
they're handed a ham license.

That's right.

And nobody with a degree is handed a ham license either.

That license exams (and licenses) are simply
entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes
with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading,
practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that).

Sure. So what's the point of all that written testing? Why is a General
qualified to use 1500 W on 14,026 kHz but not on 14,024?

The FCC has
never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams,
and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important
hams have done so).

Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed
radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited
from the ranks of amateur radio.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Circularity. USE of morse code is ALSO optional
yet the manual, "receive-by-ear" code test remains.

You are trying to have it both ways and knot yourself up...


Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Amazing for you to admit that. :-)

The FCC has
never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams,
and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important
hams have done so).

Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed
radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited
from the ranks of amateur radio.

Time today is NOT the "past" and the rest of the radio world has
advanced beyond hanging a carbon microphone in an antenna
lead and saying it is a "voice transmitter." :-)


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

Tsk, tsk, tsk...back to the circularity again (you are going around in
circles vainly trying to "prove you are right" and you aren't...).

The FCC determines what THEY need in ANY radio operator license
or station license. The "amateur community" doesn't license anyone.
U.S. radio amateurs are still free to make their desires known to the
Commission...as are any U.S. citizens, licensed or not, in any civil
radio service.

Amateur radio licensing is just a regulatory tool of the FCC. It isn't
some kind of certificate of achievement like a degree, diploma, etc.
Neither is it some "pass" into a New Lifestyle. It is nothing more than
a permission to legally operate by certain allocated modes in certain
allocated frequency bands. Your "lifestyle" commentary is just your
own, not some divine dictate of morals or ethics in an avocation. If
you want to live, breathe, give over your life to amateurism, that is
your personal choice and yours alone. You have NO "right" to
determine what others "should" enjoy or disagree...despite an
insistence that you wish to dictate.

The FCC makes on-off keying CW mode OPTIONAL to U.S. radio
amateurs. Yet the morse code test remains a NON-option for any
amateur license class having below-30-MHz transmitting privileges.
That is logically incompatible.

If the morse code test "must" stay, then the optionality of on-off
keying morse code mode should be removed. If the option of using
on-off keying remains, the morse code test should be removed.

To paraphrase Apollo 13 Flight Director Gene Kranz, "Option is not
a failure."

LHA

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


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.


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? This is a
discussion about the code test. I have no desire to expand that into a
discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams.
Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all.
Therefore, there is nothing to prove.


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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

"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/

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

Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"?

Didn't think so.

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.

I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use,
like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like
voice and Morse?

There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.

I disagree. YMMV.

In the end, it's simply an opinion question.

That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements.

Does that mean FCC is always right?

Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers?

As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

And perhaps it will be - someday.

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.

Nope.

I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test
can be used against most of the written tests.

But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion
reasons, nothing more.

No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today.


What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why
is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small
sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses?

None here, including you, have said
otherwise.

I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against
the code test.

The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

Sure it can. I've done it.

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.

You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive
counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the
writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are
*necessary*.

IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were
applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same
as you get for the code test.


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

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

Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"?

Nobody would accept "it's obvious." :-)

Didn't think so.

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).

Your methods of misdirection are doing quite well. You can make
up all kinds of fanciful, long-winded exchanges about OTHER
alleged improprieties...and that directs folks attention away from
the "necessity" of a code test.

That was your whole purpose anyway (visible to all who can read).


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.

I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use,
like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like
voice and Morse?

This is NOT about "skill testing for modes that few hams use."

This is about the CODE TEST.

There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.

I disagree. YMMV.

In the end, it's simply an opinion question.

No, it's about CONTROL. It's about keeping the SAME standards
(forever) that YOU had to meet...even when those standards won't
apply to you or your privileges.

Where is all the morse code use in all the public safety agencies
and distress-emergency communications means elsewhere in the
larger world of radio? GONE. Only some radio amateurs use it.

You will argue that other radio isn't the "same" as amateur radio.
The only bolster for that argument is your previous rationalizations
which are a disguise for requiring all in the future to do just as you
did in the past. That's the "control" part. That's keeping the OLD
standards because, if the old standards are reduced or gone, you
don't have any claim of "superiority" over others in amateur radio.

That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements.

Does that mean FCC is always right?

Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers?

No. It only means that, LONG AGO, the FCC gave into ARRL
demands, lobbying, and pressure. Way back, before Internet, the
ARRL was a mighty influence in DC. No longer.

As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

And perhaps it will be - someday.

Amateur radio is the last hurrah for morse code.

The Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) will be no more than
a memory...and countless articles of "the old days" in amateur
magazines when the editors of same can't publish technical
articles about "advancing the state of the amateur radio art."

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.

Nope.

I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test
can be used against most of the written tests.

Your "pointing" only points to subjects NOT under discussion and
you refuse to "point" to the subject.

But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion
reasons, nothing more.

Then make your "point" to the VEC QPC. They are the ones who
make up the written questions. They also generate the code test
source.

The "14 petitions" are almost exclusively about the CODE TEST.

No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today.

What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why
is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small
sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses?

Your "pointing vector" is not in the same direction as it should be.

Try to stay focussed on the CODE TEST.

None here, including you, have said
otherwise.

I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against
the code test.

You have misdirected mightily.

The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

Sure it can. I've done it.

You've done everything. :-)

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.

You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive
counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the
writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are
*necessary*.

Tsk, tsk, you are still misdirecting.

The subject is the CODE TEST and the 14 petitions.

You want to argue written questions because you have NO
counter argument to keep the CODE TEST...in this millennium.

IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were
applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same
as you get for the code test.

Your misdirection is getting absurd. This isn't about the written
questions. It is about the CODE TEST.

Hello? Earth to Jimmie, come in, spaceman spoof...find any aliens
ready to invade earth that can be destroyed through using morse
code for communications? :-)

If you are so all-fired concerned about the writtens, why don't you
contact the VEC QPC? Or file a petition with the FCC on the
amateur writtens. FCC will accept lots of things. They did with the
14 PETITIONS now closed for comment.

LHA

"N2EY" wrote:

Would you accept "it's obvious" as an
answer to "why a code test"?


I didn't offer "it's obvious" as an answer. Instead, I wrote...

"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."


I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes
that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal
par with those that are widely used, like voice and
Morse?


Those modes are already on equal par with voice (written with no skills
test). What you haven't explained is why that shouldn't be the case with
Morse.


IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it
necessary?" were applied to most of the written
questions, the answer would be the same as you
get for the code test.


Nonsense. But you're darn fool, or think I'm one, if you expect me to get
into a point-by-point discussion with you about the several hundred
questions in the question pool to prove otherwise. Enough said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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*?

BUT none of these other modes has its own separate pass/fail
test. Not any specific subject area either. Miss all the questions
on RTTY and you can still pass the test.

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.

Additiionally, those same techs can use Morse even if
they never passed a morse test.

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?

I have previously agreed that the alignment of privileges vs license class
makes little sense these days.

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.

So how come the FCC didn't buy it in 98-143. How come
no-code techs are NOT forbidden from using morse even though
hey never passed a morse test.

By the way..."their exemplary conformance to the rulkes" is a
real stretch since most rule breakers seem to be coded hams
anyway.

Cheers,
Bill

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

"N2EY" wrote:

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

Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability
to
use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those
modes and the rules associated with them.

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

Which is also the reason why failing to correctly answer any one or two
questions about any individual mode does not result in failing the test.

Morse code should join those modes in that regard.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Certainly seems incnsitent to me....on a mode for mode
comparison basis.

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?

What is there to prove?

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

Noneed to. The FCC rules require it and I'm content with that.
If you (Jim N2EY) feel otherwise, then petition the FCC for the
change. Unless you or someone else does othat, this is just academic
futility. The code TEST however, has already been acknowledged by
the FCC as not being needed anymore...so the burden of proof to retain
a code test falls on those that wish to keep 5 wpm.

SNIP of additional comparisons of license requirements vs
license privileges

I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping"
of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship
to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is
taken, be a protracted process (IMHO).

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK