"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 -

"N2EY" wrote

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

Jim obviously isn't a DX'er, or he'd know about the infamous "pileup police"
shenanigans regularly heard around 14.023 +/-. I could send you some .wav
files that aren't even fit to air on rrap.

73, de Hans, K0HB