It ain't about the test.....
 

...... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.


Well, that's the wrong question.


The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Nor is there any reason for the MEMORY Written TEST. No knowledge needed
anymore, lets just call it what it is," THE NEW CB HAM SERVICE"

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.


Well, that's the wrong question.


The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test.


Hans,

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

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason such
qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more.

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.

Well, that's the wrong question.

The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification test.

Hans,

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

Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR
LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in
the 90 years of time since 1913.

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason
such
qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more.

Not to the FCC.

In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW
RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on
Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a
"spark" transmitter), there was no great rush for establishment
of sound/voice transmissions. TTY was just getting started in
replacing landline manual telegraphy, no facsimile or other "data"
sources. Vacuum tubes were barely out of the laboratory after
5 years from invention...makers were still trying to get good QC in
the "tube factories."

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

Baloney. IMPROPER OPERATION, not "adjustment," and not
just "by amateurs."

Were there bandplans in 1913? I don't think so. Were there any
specific frequencies (wavelengths) assigned then for everyone in
radio? I think not, but you will no doubt explain away "how it was"
from personal experience in 1913. :-)

The exile of U.S. radio amateurs to the "short waves" (shorter
than 200 m) came AFTER World War 1, not before.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

In 1913 there was NO Internet to contact the FCC. There wasn't any
FCC until 1934. There was very little landline long-distance telephony
to contact the three different radio regulatory agencies that existed
between 1912 and 1934. "Communications" with any radio regulatory
agency in 1913 was by surface mail...or the "telegram" (a new term
for the mostly-manual-telegraphic message sent via landlines).

So, in the world of today (if you can tear yourself away from the
beloved past), HOW is a continuing requirement of a morse code test
going to "stop" all that improper radio operation?

Answer: It won't. Improper operation isn't due to the mode. It isn't
due to the presence or absence of a code test.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) fresh from spamming the living daylights out of the ECFS system,
writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or
not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.

Well, that's the wrong question.

The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for
access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize
distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification
test.

Hans,

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

Incorrect.

Why?

The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship FOR
LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has disappeared in
the 90 years of time since 1913.

No, it hasn't.

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason
such
qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots more.

Not to the FCC.

Then why didn't FCC just drop Element 1 back in July, when the international
treaty requirement went away?

In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW
RF sources.

No, that's not true at all.

Spark transmitters were not CW sources - they generated damped (modulated)
waves.

Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on
Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a
"spark" transmitter),

Fessenden demonstrated voice modulated spark operation as early as 1900. His
methods have been verified by actual tests using replica transmitters and dummy
loads.

Fessenden had a two-way transatlantic radiotelephone setup in operation by
November of 1906 using alternator RF sources.

The demo of Christmas Eve 1906 was repeated a week later (New Year's Eve).

These events are well documented.

there was no great rush for establishment
of sound/voice transmissions.

So?

TTY was just getting started in
replacing landline manual telegraphy, no facsimile or other "data"
sources.

So?

Vacuum tubes were barely out of the laboratory after
5 years from invention...makers were still trying to get good QC in
the "tube factories."

So?

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

Baloney.

No, it's a fact.

IMPROPER OPERATION, not "adjustment," and not
just "by amateurs."

Same thing.

Were there bandplans in 1913? I don't think so.

Yes, there were. See below.

Were there any
specific frequencies (wavelengths) assigned then for everyone in
radio?

Yes, there were, for most stations.

I think not, but you will no doubt explain away "how it was"
from personal experience in 1913. :-)

I wasn't there. Neither were you. But I obviously know far more about how it
was than you do, Leonard.

Do grow up a tiny bit and accept correction like a man, rather than a spoiled
child who cannot bear being told he is wrong. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

The exile of U.S. radio amateurs to the "short waves" (shorter
than 200 m) came AFTER World War 1, not before.

On August 17, 1912, a new radio law was signed into law by President Taft. It
had been passed by the Senate on May 12 of that year and by the House on August
9.

This bill, a revision of the earlier Alexander Bill, required that:

- all transmitting stations be operated in accordance with licenses granted by
the Department of Commerce (a Federal agency)

- all operators of transmitting stations be licensed

- every station designate a normal operating wavelength below 600 or above 1600
meters

- ship stations were designated 450 to 600 meters

- amateur stations use wavelengths not exceeding 200 meters, and transformer
power not in excess of 1 kW

- special exceptions to the rules could be authorized by the Secretary.

The professionals of the day said that the long-distance effectiveness of waves
decreased as the wavelength decreased, so the longest wavelengths were
generally assigned to the longest distance services. Amateurs were assigned the
thought-to-be-worthless-for-DX wavelengths shorter than 200 meters. Most
amateurs clustered on or near 200 meters because they believed the erroneous
theories of the professionals.

The above is all well documented.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

In 1913 there was NO Internet to contact the FCC.

So what?

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today?

There wasn't any FCC until 1934.

So what?

There were regulatory predecessors to the FCC all the way back to 1912. They
had licenses, tests, radio inspectors, callsigns, the works. The Department of
Commerce performed those functions back in 1913.

There was very little landline long-distance telephony
to contact the three different radio regulatory agencies that existed
between 1912 and 1934.

So what?

"Communications" with any radio regulatory
agency in 1913 was by surface mail...or the "telegram" (a new term
for the mostly-manual-telegraphic message sent via landlines).

Of what import is any of this?

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today?

So, in the world of today (if you can tear yourself away from the
beloved past), HOW is a continuing requirement of a morse code test
going to "stop" all that improper radio operation?

You obviously misunderstand what I wrote, Leonard. The adjustment/operation
discussion is about the need for written tests.

Answer: It won't. Improper operation isn't due to the mode. It isn't
due to the presence or absence of a code test.

Then why do so many FCC enforcement actions against amateurs involve amateurs
using voice modes, and so few against amateurs using Morse code?

The discrepancy far exceeds the difference in mode popularity.

In article , Alun
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

In article k.net,
"KØHB" writes:

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether
or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.

Well, that's the wrong question.

The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for
access to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is
no need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize
distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that
qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need
for the qualification test.

Hans,

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

Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship
FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has
disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913.

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only
reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years.
There are lots more.

Not to the FCC.

In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW
RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on
Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a
"spark" transmitter),

The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not
only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap
continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually
been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by
someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in
many ways, anyway!).

The Thomas H. White "Early Radio History" pages on the Internet
give the details on Fessenden's audio experiments and includes
several photographs. [I've given the website address in here]

The carbon-arc lamp was not a Fessenden innovation nor is it related
to "radio." :-)

Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well
above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use
alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few
watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being
very 'deaf'.

From what I can see in the history, Reginald Fessenden's only
"innovation" was to connect a specially-designed carbon
microphone in series with the LF transmitter's antenna lead and
then say it was a "voice and music transmitter." :-)

Let's just say that the great voice broadcast of 1906 was
PRIMITIVE insofar as technology was concerned. :-)

Even if the early radio receivers were also of low sensitivity, they
could receive AM. Most of the radio amateur's spark transmitters
of those pre-WW1 times used arc repetition rates of less than a
KiloHertz and were therefore distinguishable from atmospheric
noise...they were, essentially, AM detectors.

There isn't any recorded radio industry history of any rush to get
into radio broadcasting by the Fessenden "AM" of 1900 through
into the post-WW1 period, regardless of the high-tech of those
times. Broadcasting would have to wait for improvement of the
vacuum tube...and broadcasting was the driving industry of radio
development up to 1920 or so. Voice and music broadcasting,
not by morse code. :-) ...and not by having high-heat mikes
sitting in antenna leads series modulating the amplitude of the
transmitters... :-) :-) :-) :-)

--------

The deliberate misdirection of a few regulars in here is to get well
away from the subject of morse code and any test requirement.
The nit-picking on the type/kind of Fessenden AM transmitter is one
thing and those regulars distort recorded historical information on
voice transmission. One even goes so far to introduce cellular
telephones with the insistence that "turning on a cell phone handset
automatically establishes contact with the nearest cell site" which it
does NOT. Such is misdirection from the difference between the
power-on control with the actual call/transmit control on the handset.
Such things result in lots of "angry" words of denunciation occupying
lots of time NOT about the code test.

The claim that proficiency in morse code results in "more ethical,
more polite radio operators" is another one of the misdirections, along
with all the other pre-WW2 mythos and fairystories about morse code
pervading the psyches of devout morsemen. :-)

Happy holidays, Alun,
LHA

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

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or
not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.


Well, that's the wrong question.


The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for
access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize
distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification
test.


Hans,

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

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason
such
qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots
more.

Assuming you are referencing the myriad of reasons put forth
during 98-143...all of which fell short of FCC buy-in, just what else
is there

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK