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

In article , Alun
writes:

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 transmitted voice over one mile during December 1900, possibly
on the 12th, on Cobb Island, Maryland.

Yep. You can even listen to re-creations of what it may have sounded like
on-line. I posted the urls here some time back.

By 1903, he had reached 50 miles.

Of course in a way *almost all* spark transmitters use alternators, because
except for simple spark coils, they *all* use AC generated by alternators...

Fessenden's innovation was to use AC above the voice frequency range.

Brilliant guy. Over 500 patents, in a variety of fields.

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.

As is DeForrest's later voice coverage of the New York yacht race, using a
spark transmitter of the earlier type (no alternator) but using a
regenerative detector with a triode tube. I can't remember when that took
place, although it is in several books, but the triode (audion) patent
discloses the regenerative detector and was issued in 1907, so the yacht
race must have taken place around that period.

Practical regenerative detection is generally credited to Armstrong in 1915.
However, DeForest's use of voice communication at such an early date is another
historic fact.

Seems to me that Fessenden's transatlantic 2 way radiotelephone operation is
the most significant of these early developments. Less than 5 years after
Marconi claimed one-time one-way reception of a single coded letter, Fessenden
had practical, repeatable, two-way voice transatlantic radio communications
over a longer path, using much less power.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:


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.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it. Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".
And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband? Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140? Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years. The FCC
realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.




































jgjyujklo;fgd

Robert Casey wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


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.

It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.

I think it all comes down to complaints, too.

Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".

That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

(similar to the above anticodetest argument - and just as incomplete).

And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband?

Me. I've *never* done that. Not by mistake, not intentionally either.

Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140?

Not even once.

Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years.

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

The FCC realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.

That's why we have OOs. The OO program was instituted so that hams
would find out about such problem from each other rather than FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 4 Dec 2003 09:26:52 -0800, N2EY wrote:

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

Technical mistakes were, and I would guess still are, handled by
less formal warnings (a phone call or an Advisory Notice rather than
a Notice of Violation or a Notice of Apparent Liability to
Forfeiture, for instance) at least the first time around.

Whatever works.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

N2EY wrote:

Robert Casey wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:



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.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.



I think it all comes down to complaints, too.



Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".



That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and
it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing. At least be able
to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and
such. Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their
equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to modify his
radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could. It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker. I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Sure.

Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Neither the use of Morse code nor the construction/modification of equipment is
mandatory. Many hams enjoy amateur radio without doing either.

At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.

Sure.

Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.

Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.

Yet they often do just that.

It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.

Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....

And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use certified
equipment, do they not?

Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?

Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?

I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Sure.

Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Bzzt, passing a code test is NOT required to use morse code
on ALL ham bands. A "no-code" tech is free touse morse
at whatever speed or skill level (or lack of skill level) one
wants to. I have no recollection of anyone ever being cited by
the FCC for "sloppy" or too slow a code speed. Have you?

At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.

Sure.

Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of
the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.

That isn't a requirement in terms of actual use of morse.

Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.

Yet they often do just that.

You know anyone that modified their cellphone? CBs we know about,
cellphones...I doubt it.

It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.

Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill
required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....

And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use
certified
equipment, do they not?

Certified against what?

Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using
homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?

Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can
build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide
range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?

Did the novice test, even in 1960 adequuately do that? I say no, yet
those novices were also free to "homebrew" or build it themselves.

I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25
years.

Frankly, the General test of 1960 wasn't all that theory difficult. Many of
us just memorized some formulas and some circuit diagrams.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK