In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"JEP" wrote in message
. com...
SNIP
YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

It should be obvious, Bill. US ham radio is all about "working
DX on HF with CW."

It is against the law to operate on HF without morsemanship.

Probably the law of physics, even.........! :-)

LHA

In article , "Bert Craig"
writes:

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

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
SNIP
YES! No code is killing
ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy.

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it
is fostering a bad mindset.

Of course...it was STARTED by a 20 WPM code-tested Extra.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However,
there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

Yes, make those heathen no-coders sit in the back of the EM
bus! Banish them to VHF and above!

No-coders "don't belong" on HF!

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

And some olde tyme hammes have been hoisting too many at a bar.

Ah! "Mass petition!" How dare no-coders do that!

Ahem...take a look at the carbon-copy Comments on the FISTS
petition. Would you like to halt "mass petitioning" against CW
testing?

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

Of course. US ham radio is all about "working DX on HF with CW."

Emphasis on CW. Morsemanship. Just like it was in the 1930s.

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

Not all ascribe to the "morse is best" notion, either.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked.

Well then, it's all about pride in being better than most, isn't it?

In 2003 morsemanship for licensing is an Artificial Standard.

If you want to retitle Part 97 the "Aritificial Radiotelegraphy Servce,"
be my guest.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.

Absolutely NONE, Michael.

How do I know that, you may ask? Why the ARRL "told me" that in
print for years... :-)

LHA

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

None as the ARS would have remained closed down after World War I.

All of you olde tyme hammes were around then, I can't fault
such expert advice...

There
was no intent on the government part to ever re-establish those privileges.
While this is in the distant past, we don't have to look too far back to see
loss of spectrum and proposals from the government for loss of spectrum.

Absolutely...look at all the "lost spectrum" over the last 24 years!

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

There can be no fun in the ham SERVICE.

Says who?

The Field First Sergeant of your SERVICE company when you
fall out for roll call at 0530.

Answer "here" as your name is called...sound off like you got a
pair...

Hup, too, tree, foah...

LHA

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Also, at the risk of being stoned, how has the Canadian
entry level license been going which restricts those hams to
commercial equipment only? Perhaps an entry level USA
license could have a restriction of commercial only rigs
"OR" hmebrew transmitter "IF" the homebrew has been
checked out and signed off as OK by an Extra class ham.

I'm not gonna throw any stones at ya, Bill. But please note how
I was asked to shut up a while back when I pointed out some logical
inconsistencies in the written testing....

[nobody can realistically expect you to "shut up," jimmie...:-) ]

The problem with such an "Appliance Class" license is that it cuts
off those who hold it from one of the main reasons for the ARS to exist
in the USA. (Remember that the "basis and purpose" is an FCC/Part 97
thing and other countries have different ones, or none at all). Not being
*allowed* to homebrew, modify or repair one's own gear is simply a bad
idea. It would
*encourage* new hams to become even more dependent on manufacturers
rather than their own ingenuity.

So, where is the official, certified, withoutadoubtaccurate POLL
on how many of today's hams are appliance operators and how
many use their homebuilts as their main radio?

What's the percentage of appliance operators? 97%? 98%? 99%?

Some of the greatest experiences I have had in amateur radio have been in
taking an idea and some parts and turning them into a working radio
station, then making contacts with that station. Started doing that sort
of thing as a kid and never got out of the habit. Led me to EE degrees, a
career and a bunch of other things. Never would have happened if I'd had
to use only "approved" gear.
and

A few hundred thousand EEs have made career paths WITHOUT
getting a ham license first. IEEE has a bunch of them in their
membership. Are they in the "never would have happened" category?


Allowing "homebrew" via an Extra certification process would
foster positive relationships and Elmering (IMHO).

Maybe. OTOH, having to get one's projects approved by another ham slows
down the process enormously and could result in all kinds of trouble. Add
to that the fact that the current written tests are by no means adequate
to ensure that all Extras know everything they need to know in order to
sign off on another's work.

:-)

Right on...like every Extra is an automatic EE who can "certify" a
piece of work.

Nooo...for too many Extras, a Tx without a morse key attachment
thingy is a FAILED design! Would probably get an automatic
REJECT tag if it had a microphone attached...

And what problem does such an "Appliance Class" license really solve?
Do we have lots of problems here in the USA with homebrewing hams'
creations mucking up the bands and causing interference? I don't
think so.

What's the percentage of US amateurs operating "appliance rigs?"

Do all hams make their "Southgate Type 7" rigs their main one?

[what IS a "Southgate Type 7?" don't show up on a search...]


Yet the "only" difference between technicians not allowed
any HF and those allowed on the "novice" segments is a code test...
no additional knowledge of HF needed for Tech with code
to operate the Novice segments.

Sure - because that HF knowledge is tested in the written for Tech,
and was tested for in the Novice when it was available.

Nobody can operate on HF without morse code knowledge and
skill. "Everyone knows that."

That's why all the other radio services on HF demand their ops
learn, love, honor, and obey morse code.

Don't they?


I wish certain others in this newsgroup had the ability to
understand that.

But let's be honest about the situation, Bill. There *are* some folks who
want to further reduce *written* testing. (Not me!) Just look at the
"21st Century" paper for one example - particularly the attitude it projects.

Terrible attitude. Clearly not what St. Hiram would have approved
in His day.

Never mind that the NCVEC leaders are 20 WPM code tested
Extras. Never mind that NCI was begun by a 20 WPM code tested
Extra. Everyone MUST demonstrate morse skill in order to operate
on HF. It's the divine law of physics.


A lot of things we thought impossible have come to pass. Heck, FCC never
imagined that cb would get out of their control...

In hindsight, the FCC certainly should have seen it coming.

Absolutely. Unlike the olde tyme hammes the FCC is "obviously"
deficient and certainly was in 1958.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...how dare the FCC allow "civilians" on HF without
the morse test? And on an old, underused ham band, too!

Imagine...NO test at all to get a license to operate on HF some
45 years ago!

Terrible, terrible, terrible...!

Of course! But they didn't. They simply could not imagine that what
happened to cb could occur. It was simply not part of their mindset,
even though all of the indications were there.

Well, YOU "knew" it all 45 years ago, didn't you? :-)

The big mistake,
in my opinion, was the failure of the FCC to take into account the
basic "plug-n-play aspect of CB, the multitude of sales outlets via Radio
Shack (Tandy), and the constantly lowering of CB set costs, especially
once they became all solid state.

All of those things were considered *desirable* by the FCC!

Not in 1958.

But...you "knew" all about that 45 years ago...

Me, I only lived through it as an adult, watched it happen. Since "CB"
(Class D under the original rules) was on HF and I'm not "morse
qualified" by test, I can't possibly judge anything like that... :-)

The whole reason
that service was created by FCC was so that Everyman could get on the
air with inexpensive, easy-to-set-up-and-use radios for personal,
short-range communications. Particularly mobile.

God forbid that "Everyman" should get on HF without being morse
tested! Sacrilege! Heresy!

And if that's not bad enough, lookit BPL.

"lookit?" [a kit for a toilet? :-) ]

How does BPL get into this? That's a WIRED communications
thing.

The main point of all this is that FCC wasn't and isn't an infallible
bunch that Knows What Is Best For Radio. Let alone what is best for
ham radio.

Only tried and true HF morsemen "Know What Is Best For Radio!"

Don't know morse? Shove them in the back of the EM bus up
on VHF and higher. HF belongs to morsemen!

They're simply the folks in charge, who have the unenviable task of balancing
all the competing demands, and doing it with limited resources and under
various forms of pressure.

In civil radio in the USA, the FCC is THE LAW.

So it's up to us hams to make our case and set our path, not FCC.

Only tried and true HF Morsemen Know What Is Best For Ham
Radio!

LHA

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote

Only on a one-time basis.


If N2EY's latest post under "ARS License Numbers" is accurate, and if the
"fix" was instituted today, the number of Amateur Extra licensees would
increase by 213% and the vast majority (69%) of this enlarged "Extra Class"
would not qualify for the license under yesterdays rules or tomorrows rules.

Flawless accuracy, bonded and certified by independent
authorities, even comes with a gilt-edged certificate of compliance
(suitable for framing).


Given that sad state of affairs, now any NEW amateur hopefuls can
reasonably plead that any examination more comprehensive
than the current General discriminates against new applicants.

They can plead all they want...doesn't make it so. The FCC could
certainly counter argue the upgrades were a one-time need to
simplify the overall license structure.

Their counter argument would utterly fail, because they'd first need to
prove that the "one-time need" over-rides the harm of a massive influx of
underqualified (by their own rules) individuals into the top class of
amateur operators. Judges rule on logic, not administrative convenience.

Flawless logic..."everyone knows" that morse code is an absolute
requirement to operate on HF...that's why all the other users of
HF require all HF operators to know, use, and love morse code.

Don't they?

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Yes, we are all aware that YOUR PLAN is logical without peer.

Anything said against YOUR PLAN is worthless, illogical,
inconsequential, irresponsible, irrelevant, etc., etc., etc.

That is a given.

LHA

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

Bill, when are the next NCI elections for Director? I look forward to
voting for whoever runs in opposition to you. You are irresponsible and
dangerous.

What next, reporting Bill to Homeland Security?!? :-)

LHA

In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
news



The FCC doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof would
be on those that oppose what was done. Government regulations have a
presumption of legality to start with.

The question still is, what is the harm of such a one-time "fix."

Trivializing this as a one-time "fix" shows how little you've examined the
issue. Instead of a one-time "fix", it would be a one-time "hammer blow".
The answer still is exactly as stated in my previous message.

Cheerios and bran flakes to you to,

Careful, Bill, Hans might report you to somebody...or, at least,
vote against you in the next election... :-)

LHA

Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Put a friggin asterisk next to their call, like Jim said.

* = code lover. Voluntarily added, for the CW fans. No biggie.

-whatever-