"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...

Stebe, countless garments at the store claim "one size fits all."

A page from Daddy, I see.

Yes, many items CLAIM to be "one size fits all".

Now...DO they...?!?!

Unless you can provide some tangible examples that contradict
that?

Pantyhose.

Oooops...still doesn't work. Betcha I can find a pair of "one
size fits all" pantyhose that won't fit my 12 year old daugher OR
my ex-mother-in-law.

Steve, K4YZ

I can guarantee you that the "one size fits all" pantyhose really don't.
Been there, done that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Lets's save some bandwidth, snip!
I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain
about how one never plans on using it.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.
Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements...
even when a specific requirement no longer has justification.

That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most popular
mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient
justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20.

I'm not much into the newer
digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted
communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies
leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem.
(Psst, it's a character issue.)

No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions
about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test
for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other
mode is set on that pedestal.

Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill?

Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO
code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's
the harm, danger, etc?

None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code
skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual
challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the
same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture,
many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn
their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing
away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh
yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it.

You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already
have done so.

The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent
multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire
ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks.

Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun
intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with
the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot
from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks
involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn.

You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications
except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above,
NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point.

YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes,
I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN AMATEUR
USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry into,
the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today. Too easy, Bill.

If
you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the
concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was
constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers,
guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us
to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are
recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a
summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level.
Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain
that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar
will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out
those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they
have my best interests at heart.

My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading
and new learning will be tied to the end of code
testing. You must have really been disappointed when
states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes.
For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted
to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as
all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that
want to learn will. Trying to claim some great
philosophical tie of ending code testing being
the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to
learn is just bunk.

We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll skip
that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit
concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his
college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of
cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down"
part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were not
allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over for
hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so
important. Still...I'd sure be concerned.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW
knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt
conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's
be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even
call
them."slackers.")

The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal
of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued
need
for code skills
to be mandated for any HF access.

I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required
effort.

So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined,
unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be
trying to have in place for any license level?

No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort
for two (Not any.) license levels.

Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming
commence.

It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old
ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to
memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in
the late 50s exactly that way.

I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it.

Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20
mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code
characters.

Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has
already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based
on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT
is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement
determinator.

You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid
test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most
popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone,
Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.)

There was, in the past, a rational reason
or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone.
It is that simple.

There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today.

Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more
recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies
recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be
issued a license. Those that wish to engage in
morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it.
The issue is solely the test requirement and has no
link to actual morse use by anyone.

The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?)

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants
to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater
folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex
operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of
current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on
code testing. PERIOD!

Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re.
squeaking vs. achieving.

That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one.
The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the
nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse
test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now
if code testing goes altogether.

Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator.

Do you really want to focus on the code test,
Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on
and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So
you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes
for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those
who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm.

Yawn.

Sorry 'bout that.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer
the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only
FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously
errored in their past decion(s) regarding need
or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm
amazed you and others haven't filed court action to
stop the FCC.

Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however,
correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes?
Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action
against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some
recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices.

What, no motivation? :-) :-)

Lol. :-)

Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three
years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I
knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said
before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and
the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room.

The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O
for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do.

Will do.

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.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement
attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you?

Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to
increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really
just a ticket to learn.

Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh,
I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity
of effort for all ham licensing.

1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today.

2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired.

3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it.

What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs
non-highway?

Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of
2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some
seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd
pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my
proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes."

The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on
7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel
encouraged?

IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of
place they'd shift to calmer waters.

Not very nice, Bill.

I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm
for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys
switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed
spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just
breezed on by with very little effort or tension.

To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem
with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse
is allowed as long as they do so within the rules.

It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is
usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer)
BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it
was wuth my Elmer. ;-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Len Over 21" wrote


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


I knew you'd agree with me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

I just happen to agree with Hans' plan. Allow the amateur to
distinguish him or herself through actions rather than an FCC forced
march.

"Bert Craig" wrote:

(snip) The fact is that Morse code IS
the second most popular mode in use
in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself
is sufficient justification. (snip)


And, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient justification - no more
than the fact that vacuum tubes or circular analog tuning dials were once
popular justifies a requirement that they continue to be used. Clearly,
unless there is a valid reason otherwise, anyone should be free to use those
if he or she wants, but there should be no government regulation mandating
that. The same with Morse code.


Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm
test, NOT 13 0r 20.


If a person has no interest in code, the speed certainly isn't going to
change that.


(snip) Yes, I would very much "like to
continue mandating a skill test for a mode
that is all but gone from the world of
radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN
AMATEUR USE." Thats because it's a
skill test for upgrading within, not entry
into, the ARS (snip)


The Amateur Radio Service does not exist in a vacuum, Bert. The FCC
recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."
They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications systems
outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications
over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability
to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow
the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."


You mean the second most popular mode
in use today doesn't rate as a valid test
requirement determinator. (snip)


If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the second
most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even
fifth, most popular modes?

By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most popular
mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer
numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a
regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today.

Note that the newsgroups "rec.radio.cb" and "rec.radio.shortwave" were
removed from this reply (off-topic in those newsgroup).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:
[snip] The FCC
recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."
They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications
systems
outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in communications
over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has
been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the
ability
to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would "allow
the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically
inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to
learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in
the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only 5wpm
in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the
stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't happened
so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid.


You mean the second most popular mode
in use today doesn't rate as a valid test
requirement determinator. (snip)


If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the
second
most popular mode, why not argue the same for the third, forth, or even
fifth, most popular modes?

By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most
popular
mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the sheer
numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on a
regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today.


The poster should have qualified that by saying "second most popular mode on
HF". The usage of FM on HF is very strictly limited and regulated and isn't
appropriate for use on bands that are as narrow as the HF bands.

As far as testing for the other modes:

Voice - we've all been talking quite some time, the only additional
knowledge needed is procedural, which can easily be covered by the written
tests

SSTV - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the
correct operating procedures, both of which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Digital modes - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following
the correct operating procedures, both which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests.
Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to requiring
candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259 to
coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Lets's save some bandwidth, snip!
I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain
about how one never plans on using it.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.
Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements...
even when a specific requirement no longer has justification.

That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most
popular
mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient
justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20.

We don't require knowledge of second languages just because
one or more languages other than English are used by vast
numbers of non-USA hams.

Why does mode popularity mandate a separate skill test just
because others use it? NO other mode has that special
treatment...and, it appears, the FCC understands that.

I'm not much into the newer
digital modes nor am I particularly interested in Satellite assisted
communications, however, if the path to upgrading my license/privies
leads through some learning and testing re. said subjects.no problem.
(Psst, it's a character issue.)

No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions
about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test
for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other
mode is set on that pedestal.

Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill?

Of course it is an issue. Any test requirement that can't be justified has
no reason to exist...regardless of how much or how little effort
may be required.

Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need
clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO
code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's
the harm, danger, etc?

None. But I suspect you are deliberately missing my point. The code
skills themselves are irrelevant. You could substitute any actual
challenging aspect of upgrading one's ticket in it's place and the
same folks would likely bemoan it. In this "I want it now" culture,
many don't want to have to actually put forth much effort to earn
their ticket. I'd be all for dropping Element 1 altogether AND doing
away with the published Q&A pools. How about just a study guide? Oh
yeah, let's make Element 2 50 questions while we're at it.

You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already
have done so.

The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent
multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire
ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks.

Your elected representatives? Is that ARRL reps? If not, who
else as an elected representative would you expect cares?

Sorry, Bill. That may be the point you'd like to key on, (No pun
intended) but that's not the point I'm stressing. I agree 100% with
the sentence above. It's the slacker-mentality (Sorry, time to shoot
from the hip.) that I deplore. If we really want to get young folks
involved in AR, this is not a principle I'd like to see them learn.

You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications
except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above,
NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point.

YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you!
Yes,
I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN
AMATEUR
USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry
into,
the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today. Too easy, Bill.

Too bad your argument doesn't hold sway with the FCC. Additionally,
a dozen or so other countries have already abandoned morse testing
completely. The dominos are falling...it is just a matter of time. The
USA fully endorsed the end of mandatory code testing in the treaty.
Do you expect a reversal of mindset on the internal (USA only) position
by the FCC?

If
you complain enough, the bar will be lowered for you. As a youth, the
concept of achievement (As well as a well-rounded education.) was
constantly stressed and I thank God I had folks (Parents, teachers,
guidance counselors, etc.) that cared enough to strongly encourage us
to achieve rather complain. I feel so sorry for the kids that are
recently got that curve on their Regents exam rather than enroll in a
summer program to increase their knowledge to the appropriate level.
Some will perform poorly in college and if enough of them complain
that their college curriculum is unfairly difficult, perhaps that bar
will be lowered as well. Interestingly enough, I now tend to seek out
those Elmers who will push me to become a better operator. IMHO, they
have my best interests at heart.

My my, I guess the end of all amateur upgrading
and new learning will be tied to the end of code
testing. You must have really been disappointed when
states stopped testing drivers on manual gearboxes.
For me it was no problem. When my kids wanted
to drive they learned or they had no car to drive as
all our vehicles had been standard shift. Those that
want to learn will. Trying to claim some great
philosophical tie of ending code testing being
the start of an end to new/old hams continuing to
learn is just bunk.

We both know the manual gearshift analogy really doesn't work, so I'll
skip
that part. However, on the subject of you kids, weren't you the least bit
concerned that some other impatient jackass might choose to jump in his
college roomates car and just "wing it" down to the store for a pack of
cigarettes? I've seen this at Wagner College in Staten Island. The "down"
part refers to "down the hill" to Targee Ave. as cigarette machines were
not
allowed on campus. This is the jerk who'll say he's sorry over and over
for
hitting your kid's car. I guess that's why defensive driving is so
important. Still...I'd sure be concerned.

Other than a rather funny tale of an auto thief wo didn't drive a manual
but hijacked a car that was and the bozo lurched the car a couple of times
and then stalled it...I have never heard of anyone being a threat to me
or my kids because they didn't know how to drive a manual gearbox.
Frankly, if you are worried about that happening, you must lead a very
paranoid life. Far greater danger exists from the general driving
public who can't handle their vehicles in anything that resembles
non-perfect driving conditions.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW
knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their
endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt
conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks
that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's
be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even
call
them."slackers.")

The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal
of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued
need
for code skills
to be mandated for any HF access.

I disagree, I truly believe that it's almost all about the required
effort.

So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined,
unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be
trying to have in place for any license level?

No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort
for two (Not any.) license levels.

And when the FCC ends that requirement, what is your
desire for additional "work effort" requirements?

Again, drop those published Q&A pools and watch the squirming
commence.

It will never happen and I don't care if it did. The old
ARRL and AMECO learners guides were just as easy to
memorize sufficiently to pass. I did the General test in
the late 50s exactly that way.

I have the Ameco Novice guide and I kinda like it.

Folks just don't want to be made to have to sit down for 20
mins., twice daily, for a month or two and memorize 43 Morse code
characters.

Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has
already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based
on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT
is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement
determinator.

You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid
test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most
popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone,
Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.)

Sorry, not everyone talks as you well know. Based on your claim,
everyone should at least be able to have a "voice" QSO, because voice
IS the most popular mode...yet there is NO requiremnt that anyone
be conversant or have voice skills at all. Yes a significant portion
of hams have natural speaking ability, BUT that is NOT true of 100%
of hams...yet there is NO requirement at all for speaking ability.

There was, in the past, a rational reason
or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone.
It is that simple.

There still is. It's the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today.

Yet that failed to convince the FCC and, more
recently the ITU. The point is that those bodies
recognize that no one needs to know morse just to be
issued a license. Those that wish to engage in
morse contacts are free to learn morse and use it.
The issue is solely the test requirement and has no
link to actual morse use by anyone.

The FCC's goal is less work. (Something in common?)

Gross oversimplification and very uninformed viewpoint.
The FCC's goal is to have rules and regulations that make
sense. If FCC work were the ONLY driving force, they'd
probably end amateur radio completely.

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is
one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants
to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater
folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex
operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of
current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on
code testing. PERIOD!

Again, my dialogue is addressing the character issue involved re.
squeaking vs. achieving.

That's just the old tripe argument that has convinced no one.
The rony of your claim is that most of us that are the
nucleus of NCI activity had already done the morse
test at 5, 13 and/or 20 wpm. Nothing to gain now
if code testing goes altogether.

Sometimes, the prospect of less work can be a powerful motivator.

What or how would ending morse result in less work for me
and/or other NCI folks that previosuly passed any code test?
We gain nothing.

Do you really want to focus on the code test,
Bill. Quite frankly, Element 1 is NOT much of a code test to focus on
and very rarely leaves anybody with any level of OTA proficiency. So
you see, it's not the actual code knowledge or lack thereof that makes
for the dangerous scenario.it's the associated mentality of those
who'd rather squeak than achieve that can possibly lead to harm.

Yawn.

Sorry 'bout that.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer
the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only
FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously
errored in their past decion(s) regarding need
or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm
amazed you and others haven't filed court action to
stop the FCC.

Quite frankly, Bill.I'm no big fan of the FCC. You are, however,
correct.they're the only game in town. Do I think they make mistakes?
Sure, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to file a court action
against them. A few letters to my elected representatives and some
recreational debate on R.R.A.P suffices.

What, no motivation? :-) :-)

Lol. :-)

Trust me, my bubble is very much intact. I came into AR approx. three
years ago pretty much oblivious to the code vs. no-code debate. All I
knew was that I wanted to be an ARO and operate HF. Like I've said
before, remove the whing and passion from both sides of the debate and
the obvious remains like a purple elephant in the living room.

The FCC removed the winning/passion when they issued the R&O
for 98-143. If you haven't read that yet, I suggest you do.

Will do.

If you can't find a copy, let me know. I'm pretty sure its on the FCC
web pages. It may also be on or have a link to it from the
www.nci.org web site.

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.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement
attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in
a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you?

Not at all. I consider myself a relatively new ham and I continue to
increase my code proficiency OTA. After all, the license is really
just a ticket to learn.

Exactly. So then why the need for code skill testing...oh,
I remember, the FCC must impose a mystical quantity
of effort for all ham licensing.

1. Second most populat mode in use in the ARS today.

Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143

2. Unlike speech, this is a new skill that must be acquired.

Also Failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143
PLUS, there is no known harm, danger or threat if a ham
does NOT know te code and/or if a ham decided to learn
and practice on the air even though s/he never took a code test.

3. Because an awfully large portion of licensed ARO's want it.

Totally failed to convince the FCC...see R&O for 98-143
The rules and regs of amaeur radio are NOT decided by
popular vote of already licensed hams. Even as to a position
of actually what percent of already licensed hams might
want code testing retained, there is no good data that provides
an accurate picture. The last "survey" of any type was done
by the ARRL almost 10 years ago. NCI did an analysis of
comments filed pro/con when 98-143 was open for comment
and which showed the continued drift from support of code
testing. That too is now over 5 years ago.

The bottom line, (you can agree or not) is that ever since the
concept of no code testing began, the amateur community
has not been universally opposed to ending code testing.
From my perspective, the percent of hams that absolutly want
code testing to stay is an ever decreasing percentage. Exactly
what that percentage isn't known...but, if a survey was held
again, I'm sure it is less today than it was a 5 years ago and
will be even less again a year from now since newcomers
are 'generally' not proponents of code testing and as older
hams which constitute the bulk of code testing support
die off. That may seem crass, but that's the truth as I see it.

In the end, again, the FCC isn't going to make any determination
to keep code testing because X perecnt of hams want to keep
a code test. That is, again, very clear in the 98-143 R&O.

What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs
non-highway?

Thanks for makin' it easy, Bill. How about the CW only portion of
2-meters? I think that sounds like a groovy place to practice some
seriously slow code with a code-buddy. Then, if I like it, perhaps I'd
pass Element 1 and hop on the Novice/Tech "+" sub-bands to increase my
proficiency. Thos are some examples of "rural routes."

The highway, hmm. Would you really encourage a brand newbie to hop on
7026 kHz and mix it up w/the 35-wpm+ crowd, Bill? Think they'd feel
encouraged?

IF they did so, so what? They'd either make a QSO or not.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If they felt out of
place they'd shift to calmer waters.

Not very nice, Bill.

Life's a bitch and then we die. Those that are uncomfortable as
new drivers at highway speeds stay off the highway. Most
highways have minimum speeds to maintain that mindset. If
segments of amateur spectrum became known as high speed
CW segments, then what;s the problem?

I've had a couple of ops QRS from 20-wpm down to 19-wpm
for me and lemme tell ya, it wasn't fun. Conversely, I have had guys
switch to some really nice Farnsworth style 25-wpm character speed
spaced apart to about 8-wpm and an hour and a half ragchew QSO just
breezed on by with very little effort or tension.

To each his own. What ever floats your boat. I see no problem
with newbie hams doing morse at slow speeds anywhere morse
is allowed as long as they do so within the rules.

It's like pairing up Tennis partners. A beginning recreational player is
usually not paired up with the club pro unless it's for lessons. (Elmer)
BTW, I have a confession. My very first AR CW QSO was on 7031 kHz, but it
was wuth my Elmer. ;-)

I repeat, if a new ham ventures into a band segment that is known
or expected to have high speed CW as the norm...and that ham doesn't
get anyone to respond at his/her slow code speed, that's just
the way it goes. That's part of learning for any new ham.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:
[snip] The FCC
recently said "the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing
requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service."
They came to that conclusion after looking at modern communications
systems
outside Amateur Radio and the changes that have occurred in
communications
over the last fifty years. They noted that "no communication system has
been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the
ability
to receive messages in Morse code by ear." And they said reducing the
emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement would
"allow
the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically
inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to
learn
and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

That deemphasis has already occurred. The no-code tech was instituted in
the late 1980s and the code for the higher classes was dropped to only
5wpm
in 2000. There is no need for further deemphasis. Particularly when the
stated reason was attract technically inclined people. That hasn't
happened
so the reason for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid.

I have never accepted the argument that ending code testing would
result in more technically inclined folks becoming hams, BUT...
until access to the full spectrum of ham privileges comes with
no code test at all, the statement that: "That (more tech inclined hams)
hasn't happened so the reason (ending some code testing, but
not all) for deemphasis has been proven to be invalid" IS
on its own merits invalid.

You mean the second most popular mode
in use today doesn't rate as a valid test
requirement determinator. (snip)

If you're going to argue that to justify a test requirement for the
second most popular mode, why not argue the same for the
third, fourth or fifth, most popular modes?

By the way, where did you get the idea that CW was the second most
popular
mode? I agree that SSB is probably the most popular. But, given the
sheer
numbers of Technicians today and the fact that not all others use CW on
a
regular basis, certainly far more people use FM than CW today.

The poster should have qualified that by saying "second most popular mode
on
HF". The usage of FM on HF is very strictly limited and regulated and
isn't
appropriate for use on bands that are as narrow as the HF bands.

As far as testing for the other modes:

Voice - we've all been talking quite some time, the only additional
knowledge needed is procedural, which can easily be covered by the written
tests

BUT, there are some hams who have NO voice ability at all.
Should they be prohibited from becoming hams? Should we
have a medical waiver for those voice handicapped hams?

SSTV - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then following the
correct operating procedures, both of which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Digital modes - just a matter of hooking up the hardware and then
following
the correct operating procedures, both which can easily be covered by the
written tests.

Morse code/CW is unique and cannot be covered by the written tests.

Wrong. The ability (the skill) to send/recieve may not
be a written test aspect, but the theory, signal characteristics,
and some other aspects can be and are on the writtens.

Actually I happen to believe that there would be great benefit to
requiring
candidates to demonstrate other basic skills, such as soldering a PL-259
to
coax as an example, for licensing. But I know it won't happen.

Why would you want that? Frankly, soldering has never been
a strong point with me...yet I've been able to do quite well
technically in my career as well as ham radio. I can "get by"
but prefer to have others do some of the connector soldering
chores for me.

Additionally, a soldering test, especially a PL-259 would be
too subjective a determination. Even soldering can't be learned by
all hams. Would we then have a soldering waiver for blind hams
or other hams handicapped by some affliction that didn't allow
them to ever pass a soldering test?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Lets's save some bandwidth, snip!
I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1. I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than complain
about how one never plans on using it.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.
Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements...
even when a specific requirement no longer has justification.

That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most
popular
mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient
justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r 20.


Bert, if you're using popularity as a justification--and the test questions
may have changed to inlcude this since I entered ham radio--then why are
there no questions or demonstration required during testing for the *number
1* most popular mode of operation?

Not that I am arguing against your desire to see CW stay as a test
element--that is your desire and I have no problem with it at all. But, the
argument of popularity probably doesn't, in fact doesn't with me, hold water
for importance--and can be turned around to my question above: why not have
questions based on phone operation and also have the mode tested? A net
condition is easy to establish for testing, doesn't even really require
radio at all (it could be "pretended" in any room with more than one
person).



No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions
about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test
for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other
mode is set on that pedestal.

Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill?


For me, there is an issue at *any* speed for CW testing. It's validity has
waned.


You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already
have done so.

The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent
multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the entire
ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks.


heh heh...see...I haven't sent any, as the issue isn't that important to me
and I can live with it either way. I really never intend on upgrading, and
already 5 wpm. I leave the real meat of this issue to those who are that
passionate about it. :)


You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications
except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above,
NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point.

YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you!
Yes,
I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN
AMATEUR
USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry
into,
the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today. Too easy, Bill.


Again, I point out that it would probably not be a plus for the FCC to
continue facilitating a CW test, when it is nearly only the ARS that has it
in use today. I am not sure what costs are associated with administering
the CW test, but one must inlcude any time spent/wasted (depending on your
point of view) for the FCC, congresspersons, etc., to read and deal with the
issue.


So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined,
unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be
trying to have in place for any license level?

No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm) effort
for two (Not any.) license levels.


I think it's OK to have two license levels. But, rather than a CW test, I'd
support nearly anything else but a mode test--any mode. Written tests
suffice for any level of license.


Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has
already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based
on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT
is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement
determinator.

You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a valid
test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most
popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the stand-alone,
Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.)


Ruh roh...there you go again with the "second most popular mode." If that
is justification, then the first most popular mode needs to be tested, not
the second. :o

Kim W5TIT