"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

"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

"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

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

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.

That argument can be applied to almost any part of any proposed test.


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?

Bob Gunderson, W2JIO, demonstrated that blind people could
do all sorts of radio construction. Blind himself, he devised ways
to do almost every imaginable radio task without sight - including
tasks like soldering and reading meters. And this was before WW2.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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


There ya go!!! Man, I'd love to see establishing a station
tested--AND--that can be done either through written explanation or physical
demonstration. And, soldering would certain be something that I'd agree
with, too!

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" 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. (snip)


I disagree. The reasons stated for reducing code (changes over last 50
years, no system dependant on code in many years, and so on) could just as
easily be used to argue against a code test of any kind. In other words, how
are those facts changed by a 5 wpm test instead of a 13 wpm test?


(snip) Morse code/CW is unique and
cannot be covered by the written tests.
Actually (snip)


It is unique only in the level of emphasis placed on it. Without that
emphasis, there would be no unique test for it. Which brings us right back
where I started, pointing to what the FCC has said - "the emphasis on Morse
code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis
and purpose of the service."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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.


Get the foul mouthed red necked yahoos off of HF and I'll consider wasting
my time to learn CW to meet and exceed your criteria.

In article , "Steve Stone"
writes:

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.


Get the foul mouthed red necked yahoos off of HF and I'll consider wasting
my time to learn CW to meet and exceed your criteria.

What mode are those "foul mouthed yahoos" using? It isn't CW.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Steve Stone"
writes:


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.


Get the foul mouthed red necked yahoos off of HF and I'll consider wasting
my time to learn CW to meet and exceed your criteria.


What mode are those "foul mouthed yahoos" using? It isn't CW.....

That I believe, would be foul fisted. 8^)

I'm having trouble grasping the logic that says to effect: "I don't like
the way people talk, so I won't communicate with the people that don't
use voice"

- Mike KB3EIA -