In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"William" wrote in message
om...
Has the FCC "dissented" to the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code?

That is what I asked.

Has it not had the opportunity to intervene if it DID think that it
was
improper or illegal to use?

I believe that the FCC is unaware.

After nearly 20 years or so, the FCC is unaware?? Not hardly.

Unaware? I'd say so just on the Commissioners' statements
whooping and hollering about Access BPL at the back end of
NPRM 04-29. They are UNAWARE of the most basic things
about RF transmission lines. QED.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

The FCC was informed of the use of Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code, and of
other
standard practices of the VE teams. FCC took no exceptions, and there
were
no
dissenting opinions in the FCC or the VE teams. Therefore, the use of
Farnsworth spaced Morse Code had a legal basis.

AFTER the fact.

So what?

So all those years that it was in use WITHOUT a legal basis, that's
what.

VEs had used Farnsworth spacing BEFORE it was acknowledged
by the Commission.

How do you know?

Why don't you know?

In addition, anyone who prefers non-Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code for
their
test need merely request it and the VE team will provide it.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

How do you know that FCC was not contacted by the VECs? How do you know
what
method of code testing was used by FCC when they gave the tests?

If the FCC is going to require an exam for licensure, shouldn't the
public know what the requirements are?

Those who understand how Morse Code works have no problem with the use
of
Farnsworth spacing.

Regardless of that, the Farnsworth spacing was used BEFORE it
had any legal basis.

Do you have any proof of that claim?

I didn't think so.

We've been through this before.

Jimmy likes to go over and over and over and over old subjects.
Maybe he figures he might win one of them during reruns... :-)

LHA / WMD

"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published. If you missed it, that's your problem.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 8:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 5:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Does it matter?

Do you matter?

Of course I do. Just like you matter.

Now you're lying again. You've treated a whole parade of people on
rrap as if they were chewing gum or worse stuck to the sole of your
jump boots.

Too bad for you, Brain, that you can't see beyond your own wounded pride.

Of course it wouldn't BE wounded if you'd quit shooting yourself in the
foot in public all the time.

But you STILL matter, whether you beleive it or not.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Yet Again, Len!
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 12:35 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

In which FCC or other pertient federal law or regulation were they
obligated to announce that they were, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

"William" wrote in message
m...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...

Naturally. Farnsworth spaced code for slow word speeds is much
easier
to
copy than using slow letters.

Unnaturally. If the person prepared for Morse Code as stated in
the
regulation, the Farnsworth Code will zip by. Failure is
predictable.

No current study materials omit explaining to the student that the
Farnsworth spacing will be used in the test. Anyone who ignores
that
information has set themselves up for failure.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

The ARRL used Farnsworth for years before publishing a notice that
they were doing so.

Sorry but it was published.

Years later.

Nope published from the beginning. You just didn't look the right places.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article et, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I don't see the 5 wpm for Extra thing as a problem - because I don't
think
it has a snowball's chance in

[expletive deleted]

of getting approved by the FCC.

One has to ask the question of what the FCC gets out of requiring code
for extras.

That's the key question these days for any license requirement these days.
You make an excellent point.

Good...so far.

The problem is that it also applies in other areas, such as "what does FCC
get out of protecting hams from BPL interference?"

Then will we expect you to make that argument to the
FCC when you comment?

HECK NO, BILL!

The answer to that question could very well be "Gee, we *don't* get anything
out of protecting hams from BPL - so we won't!".

As the
treaty requirement is now gone,
and no other service uses it, why bother.

Because hams *do* use it.

Yet hams do NOT need to pass a CW test to be
allowed to use morse.
If a "no-code" tech decides to operate
morse on VHF, they are free to do so without ever being
tested. If the ARRL proposal gets the nod, the same would
be true for Novice and Generals on HF also.

There are all sorts of things hams are allowed to do without being tested, or
without being tested in depth. For example, a ham who passed the tests before,
say, PSK-31 was invented is still allowed to use that mode without being
tested. But that does not mean no test is needed, or that the current tests
should not have PSK-31 in them because the old tests didn't.

Some other services use it too, but not to any great
extent.

And certainly not to any extent that one would expect
any ham to need to know code to read or operate
with nay of those other services. By the way...what
other services are you thinking of?

There is still some maritime Morse code use, and it is used for ID in some
applications.

The FCC isn't
in the business of giving out gold stars for the

[expletive deleted]

Jim, even I am not offended by "hell"
It was a joke, Bill ;-)

of it.

Not about "gold stars". About qualifications.
Of course there's differences of
opinion on what qualified means.

The retention of a 5 wpm test for Extra in light of no
code for all others makes even less sense.

I disagree. Morse code is the second most popular mode in amateur radio. For
even the most privileged license to require no skill in its use makes no sense.

Code isn't a lid filter,

*No* test is a perfect "lid filter".

No test is in any way a lid filter...as you note below.

You misunderstand what I wrote.

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

Particularly not a test given one time.
There are bad doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., who have been through
much
more extensive and rigorous testing and education, yet were not filtered
out by those testing and education systems.

I repeat...NO test is a lid filter.

If that's true, why have tests at all?

No test is a *perfect* lid filter.

as witness
14.313 back in the days of 13wpm to be allowed to operate there.

You mean before 1990? (medical waivers)

Are you assuming all the 14.313 loonies had code medical
waivers?

Nope - but neither is it safe to assume that none of them did.

Remember this:

All those folks on 14.313, 3950, W6NUT, etc., passed *written* exams that
included the rules and regulations. Most of them passed multiple written
exams,
yet they broke the rules anyway. So obviously those written tests aren't a
perfect lid filter either.

Note that I wrote "perfect lid filter".

Shall we dump the rules and regs from those
written exams because they didn't do the job?

oh wait, that's what NCVEC is proposing for the entry level!

A point we agree on.

Exactly.


73 de Jim, N2EY