Len Over 21 wrote:

You absolutely NAILED it Michael. Amateur radio was started and
sustained until post-WWII by tinkerers, experimenters, and technically
orientated types.

"Technically oriented," not 'orientated.'

"Sycophant", not "syncophant" (used thrice over several days).
"Belligerent", not "beligerant".
"Atilla", not "Atila".

The rest of Doctor Anderson's lecture has been omitted since there is an
ARRL (once a local Hartford, Connecticut club but no longer) and there
is an amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Michael Black" wrote

| Take out that history from amateur radio, and I really
| don't see it starting up today.

You absolutely NAILED it Michael. Amateur radio was started and
sustained until post-WWII by tinkerers, experimenters, and technically
orientated types.

Also traffic handlers, ragchewers, DX and emergency types.
Skilled operators, IOW.

The early hams had to be technically oriented, because the
equipment of the time demanded it. A ham who knew what s/he
was doing could work the world with arelatively simple station,
while a ham who didn't couldn't hear a station in the next
town.

Of course, much of the development of electronics since those
times has been aimed at reducing and eliminating the need for
"users" to have technical knowledge and/or operator skill.
Amateur radio is one of the few places where such things are
considered important. Indeed, the whole concept of "radio
operator" has largely disappeared outside amateur radio.

That our service continues to exist today is a
miracle, attributable mainly to the efforts of RAC, ARRL, DARC, JARL,
IARU, RAE, RSGB, and all the other national societies who so far have
convinced the regulators to allow us to continue.

And the hams who make up those organizations.

The notion of a "start up" amateur radio service or any personal radio
service with such broad gifts of spectrum and freedom to experiment as
we enjoy wouldn't gain any traction at all in todays technological
environment.

Exactly. What might be created would resemble MURS or FRS, with lots of
restrictions and requirements, and very little of the freedom we take for
granted.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:


"Michael Black" wrote

| Take out that history from amateur radio, and I really
| don't see it starting up today.

You absolutely NAILED it Michael. Amateur radio was started and
sustained until post-WWII by tinkerers, experimenters, and technically
orientated types.


Also traffic handlers, ragchewers, DX and emergency types.
Skilled operators, IOW.

The early hams had to be technically oriented, because the
equipment of the time demanded it. A ham who knew what s/he
was doing could work the world with arelatively simple station,
while a ham who didn't couldn't hear a station in the next
town.

Of course, much of the development of electronics since those
times has been aimed at reducing and eliminating the need for
"users" to have technical knowledge and/or operator skill.
Amateur radio is one of the few places where such things are
considered important. Indeed, the whole concept of "radio
operator" has largely disappeared outside amateur radio.

Careful Jim!! One of the arguments against Morse testing is that
outside groups do not use Morse code any more, so it isn't needed. Since
outside groups don't use "trained radio operators" any more, this is one
more reason not to test for anything.

Carl will be very upset you put *this* idea in people minds too! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

There is absolutely NOTHING "wrong" with getting a block of
frequencies just for recreation. R/C did it and modelers have NEVER
claimed anything close to aiding homeland security or being of some
vital and important aid in times of emergency.

Because, your Scumminess, that's NOT what they are trying to
accomplish, nor are they required by regulation to be able to assist
with.

Amateur radio, if it came to be, would have a decidedly different
scope of activities in this alternate universe. It would BEGIN to
evolve, probably to something else, since there was no "tradition"
to "preserve" nor any set of 1930s Standards and Practices to
uphold 7 decades later. Radio amateurism would begin ANEW.

And it would STILL not include a lying putz like you...even if
you said "pretty please".

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net, "KØHB"
writes:


"Michael Black" wrote

| Take out that history from amateur radio, and I really
| don't see it starting up today.

You absolutely NAILED it Michael. Amateur radio was started and
sustained until post-WWII by tinkerers, experimenters, and technically
orientated types.


Also traffic handlers, ragchewers, DX and emergency types.
Skilled operators, IOW.

The early hams had to be technically oriented, because the
equipment of the time demanded it. A ham who knew what s/he
was doing could work the world with arelatively simple station,
while a ham who didn't couldn't hear a station in the next
town.

Of course, much of the development of electronics since those
times has been aimed at reducing and eliminating the need for
"users" to have technical knowledge and/or operator skill.
Amateur radio is one of the few places where such things are
considered important. Indeed, the whole concept of "radio
operator" has largely disappeared outside amateur radio.

Careful Jim!! One of the arguments against Morse testing is that
outside groups do not use Morse code any more, so it isn't needed. Since
outside groups don't use "trained radio operators" any more, this is one
more reason not to test for anything.

We've been going in that direction for almost 30 years, Mike.

The issue isn't Morse Code testing or question pools or VEs vs. FCC examiners.
It's much bigger than that.

Remember the old original Rod Serling "Twilight Zone" TV show? One of the most
memorable episodes was called "The Obsolete Man". Starred Burgess Meredith and
Dennis Weaver in a future totalitarian state where most books were banned.
Meredith's character was a librarian - and was declared "obsolete" by The
State,
because without most books there was no need for libraries or librarians.

From the beginnings of radio, the concept of "radio operator" has been part of
our thinking. To us, that concept means "a person trained and skilled in the
operation and adjustment of radio equipment". An honorable profession
going back to at least Jack Binns if not before.

Remember when ham rigs required skill and knowledge to use? A piece of gear
that the average person couldn't get a peep out of becomes a worldwide
communications system in the right hands. Some folks don't like that.

And it's exactly the concept of "radio operator" that some want to eliminate,
I think.

In the case of maritime radio, it was for economic reasons - the beancounters
said it was cheaper to buy satellite equipment than to pay ROs. Coast Guard
could replace their coast stations and ops with automated stuff. The military
and airlines did it years ago for similar reasons. Broadcasters hopped on the
wagon several years ago too. In fact it goes all the way back to Western Union
and the RRs getting rid of the wire telegraph.

The idea they're selling is simply that radio isn't supposed to require radio
operators, just as the telephone network and the internet don't require them.
That's why they avoid the word "radio" and instead say "cellphone" or "wireless
network" or "broadband" or "satellite" - *anything* but "radio". The "modern"
equipment is supposed to be so automatic that there's no need for operators, or
their skills.

Of course they can't just come out and say that, nor eliminate the licenses.
I don't see how arguing the point with FCC can accomplish anything but get them
mad at us, which we don't need.

I think the some folks are trying to slowly but surely declare radio operators
"obsolete" - along with their licenses.

All that's left is us hams to keep the concept alive.

Carl will be very upset you put *this* idea in people minds too! ;^)

Carl has expressed his disdain for the concept of skilled radio operators here.
Look up some of his posts under his old call (WA6VSE) and phrases such as
"electronic paintball wars" "stomp into the dust" "wetware modem" "emulate a
modem" "better modes and modulations"....

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article k.net,
"KØHB"
writes:


"Michael Black" wrote

| Take out that history from amateur radio, and I really
| don't see it starting up today.

You absolutely NAILED it Michael. Amateur radio was started and
sustained until post-WWII by tinkerers, experimenters, and technically
orientated types.


Also traffic handlers, ragchewers, DX and emergency types.
Skilled operators, IOW.

The early hams had to be technically oriented, because the
equipment of the time demanded it. A ham who knew what s/he
was doing could work the world with arelatively simple station,
while a ham who didn't couldn't hear a station in the next
town.

Of course, much of the development of electronics since those
times has been aimed at reducing and eliminating the need for
"users" to have technical knowledge and/or operator skill.
Amateur radio is one of the few places where such things are
considered important. Indeed, the whole concept of "radio
operator" has largely disappeared outside amateur radio.

Careful Jim!! One of the arguments against Morse testing is that
outside groups do not use Morse code any more, so it isn't needed. Since
outside groups don't use "trained radio operators" any more, this is one
more reason not to test for anything.

We've been going in that direction for almost 30 years, Mike.

You two are defining "trained radio operators" solely in terms of
RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

In the entire vast, much-bigger-than-amateurism world of radio
communications there is NO NEED of radio telegraphers. That has
been true for many years.

The FCC does not mandate, compel, or imply that morse code
must be used over and above any other allocated mode.

Yet, some radio amateurs insist that the essence, the prime
existance of amateur radio is all for radiotelegraphy skills. Why?

Rhetorical answer to the above should be obvious. :-)

The issue isn't Morse Code testing or question pools or VEs vs. FCC
examiners.
It's much bigger than that.

"Much bigger than that?"

Not in this newsgroup. :-)

Remember the old original Rod Serling "Twilight Zone" TV show? One of the
most
memorable episodes was called "The Obsolete Man". Starred Burgess Meredith
and
Dennis Weaver in a future totalitarian state where most books were banned.
Meredith's character was a librarian - and was declared "obsolete" by The
State,
because without most books there was no need for libraries or librarians.

This newsgroup is NOT a forum for critiquing fictitious television
shows, FAA policy, or nursing.

FACT: Radiotelegraphy IS becoming obsolete, even in amateur radio.

FACT: Radiotelegraphy is NOT used for prime radio communications
outside of amateur radio except in isolated uses in maritime radio.

From the beginnings of radio, the concept of "radio operator" has been part of
our thinking. To us, that concept means "a person trained and skilled in the
operation and adjustment of radio equipment".

To US who were in the big-time radio communications on HF of a half
century ago, that did not involve morse code. There were and still are
a lot of "US" involved in that.

As usual, there is considerable misconstruance on equating "skilled
radio operator" with radio telegrapher.

An honorable profession
going back to at least Jack Binns if not before.

Amateur radio is NOT a profession. By definition of law.

Remember when ham rigs required skill and knowledge to use? A piece of gear
that the average person couldn't get a peep out of becomes a worldwide
communications system in the right hands. Some folks don't like that.

I was IN worldwide communications on HF over a half century ago.
At the time I liked it fine...even felt honored to be able to serve my
country doing just that.

None of that involved morse code.

And it's exactly the concept of "radio operator" that some want to
eliminate, I think.

You think mistakenly, but your freedom exists to state that you
think as you do and "much better" than others. :-)

Tens of thousands of skilled radio operators worldwide have used
worldwide communications effectively for decades without ever
once having to use or know morse code. They have done so for
over a half century.

The year is 2004. It is not the 1920s or the 1930s when radio was
a rarity that only a few knew or understood.

You cannot maintain a status quo in a technological field solely on
the grounds of having "mastered" a particular skill that was once a
necessity, especially one whose necessity was before your life
existance.

In the case of maritime radio, it was for economic reasons - the beancounters
said it was cheaper to buy satellite equipment than to pay ROs. Coast Guard
could replace their coast stations and ops with automated stuff. The military
and airlines did it years ago for similar reasons. Broadcasters hopped on the
wagon several years ago too. In fact it goes all the way back to Western
Union and the RRs getting rid of the wire telegraph.

Too narrow a focus.

The essence of radio operation is to effect COMMUNICATIONS. It is
not about USING a radio.

The idea they're selling is simply that radio isn't supposed to require radio
operators, just as the telephone network and the internet don't require them.

The only ones "selling" the concept of "skilled radio telegrapher" seems
to be the ARRL and its faithful Believer membership.

The U.S. military did not require any morsemanship to use the very
first handheld transceivers (on HF) for communications in 1940. That's
64 years ago. Neither did they require any morsemanship to use the
first backpack radio (on VHF) in 1943. That's 61 years ago.

Did broadcasters EVER use radiotelegraphy? I don't think so. The
broadcasters and the government of the USA tossed amateurs off of
MF a very long time ago. Broadcasters have continued to operate
on fixed frequencies for long, long operating times due to good design
of equipment, never really had any need to "operate" the radio
transmitters in the amateur (apparent) definition. [been there, done
that, got the signed backs licenses] Broadcasters concentrate on
program production, not the continual operation of their transmitters.

The hundreds of thousands of PLMRS transceivers are not "operated"
every day in the apparent amateur sense. The essence of such
radios is to communicate and get information, not to "work other
stations" to get QSL cards or to engage in "radiosport."

That's why they avoid the word "radio" and instead say "cellphone" or
"wireless
network" or "broadband" or "satellite" - *anything* but "radio".

You haven't been in the wider world of radio communications if you
think thusly. :-)

The key word in the rest of the radio world has always been
COMMUNICATIONS, not the operation of radios.

A wireless network is called "wireless" since it does not use wires
as in a wired local area network linking computes. Neither network
requires "trained radio operators" to use and never did. :-)

"Satellite" as spoken of in the communications field refers to the
communications satellite, usually (but not always) in a geo-
synchronous orbit. There are other types of satellites and all of
them use radio in various forms for control, guidance, telemetry
as well as communications. There are no manned satellites yet.
Only the International Space Station is manned.

"Broadband" is a generic term for any data, video, or other
communications that requires a broad bandwidth in its
propagation path. That applies to both wired, fibered, or
radioed communications paths and the "broadness" depends
on the rate of communications.

The telephone was conceived as a simple-to-use
communications device, primarily for individual users. A cellular
telephone is an extension of the telephone using a small two-
way radio to complete the wireless extension. A "cellphone"
is releatively easy to use, so much so that the number of USA
cellphone subscribers is one in every three citizens.

The "modern"
equipment is supposed to be so automatic that there's no need for operators,
or their skills.

That worked out very nicely, thanks be to the engineers and designers
who made it all possible. :-)

Of course they can't just come out and say that, nor eliminate the licenses.
I don't see how arguing the point with FCC can accomplish anything but get
them mad at us, which we don't need.

So...the old thoughts about keeping a living museum of ancient radio
skills in amateurism is out? :-)

I think the some folks are trying to slowly but surely declare radio operators
"obsolete" - along with their licenses.

Radiotelegraphers ARE obsolete. They just refuse to admit it. :-)

All that's left is us hams to keep the concept alive.

Ah! The concept of a living museum of ancient radio skills is still
alive!

Carl will be very upset you put *this* idea in people minds too! ;^)

Carl has expressed his disdain for the concept of skilled radio operators
here.
Look up some of his posts under his old call (WA6VSE) and phrases such as
"electronic paintball wars" "stomp into the dust" "wetware modem" "emulate a
modem" "better modes and modulations"....

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still feeling pain of old, old newsgroup gropes? :-)

Olde-tyme radio amateurs who are firm Believers of the standards
and practices of the 1930s should TRY to approach the new
millennium with some up-to-date concepts.

Radiotelegraphy IS obsolete...everywhere but in amateur radio.

Radiotelegraphy is on the road to Defunctville.

Radiotelegraphy is as modern as horses and buggies on
interstate highways...restricted to a cult status like the Amish
who froze all their technology past an ancient time.

Keep polishing the handle on the door of the Living Museum of
Archaic Radio. Who knows what visitors will show up?

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

In the entire vast, much-bigger-than-amateurism world of radio
communications there is NO NEED of radio telegraphers. That has
been true for many years.

HEY SCUMBAG!

This forum is about AMATEUR RADIO. You yourself have
"acknowledged" that on several occassions, yet you quickly "forget"
your own assertions when you want to "make" your point.

This is NOT "commercial" radio...Not the Armed Forces or maritime
services.

Are you having a problem with this concept?

Is your ONLY "argument" that since the military allegedly doesn't
use Morse Code, then we don't?

If so, you're a bigger idiot than you let on, although that in
itself would be a pretty hard order to fill.

Steve,K4YZ

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl will be very upset you put *this* idea in people minds too! ;^)


Carl has expressed his disdain for the concept of skilled radio operators here.
Look up some of his posts under his old call (WA6VSE) and phrases such as
"electronic paintball wars" "stomp into the dust" "wetware modem" "emulate a
modem" "better modes and modulations"....



I wonder where Carl is lately? Haven't heard from him since he had the
change of heart regarding the testing.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

In the entire vast, much-bigger-than-amateurism world of radio
communications there is NO NEED of radio telegraphers. That has
been true for many years.

HEY SCUMBAG!

Well, the gunnery nurse's "attitude" adjustment seems to have lasted
only a few days.

That may be a record in here! :-)

This forum is about AMATEUR RADIO. You yourself have
"acknowledged" that on several occassions, yet you quickly "forget"
your own assertions when you want to "make" your point.

This is NOT "commercial" radio...Not the Armed Forces or maritime
services.

Neither is it about "nursing" or "piloting," ace gunnery nurse.

However, radio is radio, and the physics of same does NOT change
because an administration defines certain radio activities as
"amateur."

Are you having a problem with this concept?

No, but you are definitely still having a problem with "attitude."

Is your ONLY "argument" that since the military allegedly doesn't
use Morse Code, then we don't?

The U.S. military does NOT use any morse code for communications.

The U.S. military only requires morse code cognition by a relative
handfull of military intelligence specialists engaged in monitoring
and intercepting enemy and potential-enemy messaging.

If so, you're a bigger idiot than you let on, although that in
itself would be a pretty hard order to fill.

Now now, gunnery nurse, keep that B.P. down, take your blood
pressure medication like a good patient...and climb down from
the table top, your fists were hitting the dining room light.

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

To US who were in the big-time radio communications on HF of a half
century ago, that did not involve morse code. There were and still are
a lot of "US" involved in that.

For some of US who've had more recent experience than yours, morse was
involved. For many of us who are actually radio amateurs and who are
participants in big-time radio HF communications today, morse code is
still involved. What are you doing in big-time HF these days?


I was IN worldwide communications on HF over a half century ago.
At the time I liked it fine...even felt honored to be able to serve my
country doing just that.

None of that involved morse code.

....and because you didn't use morse, no one used it at the time or
since.
A number of us have used morse professionally and as radio amateurs in
the decades after you had your "big-time".

Tens of thousands of skilled radio operators worldwide have used
worldwide communications effectively for decades without ever
once having to use or know morse code. They have done so for
over a half century.

Tens of thousands of skilled radio ops worldwide *have* used morse
effectively for worldwide communications after your day in the sun.
Tens of thousands still do so.


The U.S. military did not require any morsemanship to use the very
first handheld transceivers (on HF) for communications in 1940. That's
64 years ago. Neither did they require any morsemanship to use the
first backpack radio (on VHF) in 1943. That's 61 years ago.

Yet the military continued to use morse. What's your point?


The hundreds of thousands of PLMRS transceivers are not "operated"
every day in the apparent amateur sense. The essence of such
radios is to communicate and get information, not to "work other
stations" to get QSL cards or to engage in "radiosport."

The hundreds of thousands of amateur radio ops work DX, engage in
radiosport, check into nets or engage in public service communications
without touching a PLMRS transceiver.


"Broadband" is a generic term for any data, video, or other
communications that requires a broad bandwidth in its
propagation path. That applies to both wired, fibered, or
radioed communications paths and the "broadness" depends
on the rate of communications.

I see. "Broadband" means "broad bandwidth". You could have knocked me
over with a feather when I read your words. So to your way of thinking
on "broadness", a morse communication at 5 wpm on 10 KHz could be
considered "broadband"?

Dave K8MN