(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse
code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many
countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain
access to HF.

Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S.
around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many
foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your
pick.

Sure
there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive.

It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham
population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite
aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let
the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they
manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic
work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam
levels down.

I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long?

Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham
code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with
it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus
it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to
accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the
public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more
codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands.

Can't they come
to some decision quickly.

Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe??

Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once.

w3rv


That's not a troll

Alun wrote in message .. .
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse
code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many
countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain
access to HF.

Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S.
around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many
foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your
pick.

Sure
there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive.

It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham
population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite
aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let
the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they
manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic
work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam
levels down.

I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long?

Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham
code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with
it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus
it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to
accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the
public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more
codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands.

Can't they come
to some decision quickly.

Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe??

Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once.

w3rv


That's not a troll

If so then he really did just get off the boat.

w3rv

In article , Alun
writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
. com:

"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse
code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many
countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain
access to HF.

Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S.
around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many
foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your
pick.

Sure
there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive.

It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham
population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite
aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let
the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they
manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic
work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam
levels down.

I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long?

Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham
code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with
it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus
it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to
accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the
public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more
codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands.

Can't they come
to some decision quickly.

Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe??

Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once.

w3rv


That's not a troll

Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-)

As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration
purposes for years. My mother and her family came through
there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928.
Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later.

Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America,
judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-)

[this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of
the DAR...:-) ]

(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040921232140.06972.00000803
@mb-m03.aol.com:

In article , Alun
writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
.com:

"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...
What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse
code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many
countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain
access to HF.

Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S.
around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many
foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your
pick.

Sure
there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive.

It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham
population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite
aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let
the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they
manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic
work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam
levels down.

I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long?

Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham
code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with
it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus
it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to
accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the
public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more
codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands.

Can't they come to some decision quickly.

Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe??

Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once.

w3rv


That's not a troll

Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-)

As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration
purposes for years. My mother and her family came through
there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928.
Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later.

Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America,
judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-)

[this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of
the DAR...:-) ]




I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

Alun wrote:
(Len Over 21) wrote in news:20040921232140.06972.00000803
@mb-m03.aol.com:


In article , Alun
writes:


(Brian Kelly) wrote in
e.com:


"Joe Guthart" wrote in message
...

What's going on here ... the talk of restructuring to remove morse
code requirements has been going on for over 18 months. Many, many
countries have already removed the morse code requirement to gain
access to HF.

Kindly note that "other countries" don't generally lead the U.S.
around by it's nose. The U.S. seldom blindly buys into "many many
foreign goverments'"internal policies. We ain't EU/UN sheep. Take your
pick.


Sure
there's been a lot of backlash from those who still want to keep code
alive.

It's not a "backlash", a very large precentage of the U.S. ham
population favors the retention of the code test. The FCC is quite
aware of this divide within the hobby and as a result continues to let
the matter cook on one of their sub-basement back burners until they
manage to get back to the matter. Typical bush-league bureaucratic
work and aggravation avoidance ploy. Keeps their inbox flak & spam
levels down.


I know this is the government, but, what is taking so long?

Because the public has no vested interest at all in whether the ham
code test goes away or not. The FCC has *much* bigger fish to fry with
it's scarce resources. For instance the public needs the FCC to focus
it's assets on dramatically reshuffling the whole upper RF spectrum to
accomodate wireless broadband access to the Internet far more than the
public needs the FCC to diddle with rules changes which allow more
codeless hobbyists access to the HF ham bands.


Can't they come to some decision quickly.

Joesph did you just get off the boat at Ellis Island Joe??


Anyone have a proposed timeline of when this will be settled.

Nice troll Joe. At least in on-topic for once.

w3rv


That's not a troll

Alun, Kelly's remarks are "civil discourse" of PCTA extras. :-)

As a sidelight, Ellis Island has been closed for immigration
purposes for years. My mother and her family came through
there in 1924, my father and his brother through there in 1928.
Both parents became naturalized U.S. citizens later.

Apparently the "Kelly" surname is native to North America,
judging by the tenor of the "civil discourse." :-)

[this is beginning to sound like the PCTA are a branch of
the DAR...:-) ]





I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.


Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that
you don't use.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either

somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that
you don't use.

- Mike KB3EIA -

False logic, bad connections. Clean your iron, too many cold solder
joints.

Test Element 1 in the USA only involves morsemanship. Morse code
mode is the ONLY one of many - all optional - modes allowed to
U.S. amateur radio. There has never been another manual operating
test for any other mode in the 70-year history of the FCC in amateur
radio.

Morse code testing doesn't compare to any other thing but morse
code. Trying to draw analogues to other things is ridiculous...but you
knew that, didn't you?

The written part of the U.S. amateur radio test involves FCC regulations.
Those regulations include all the permissible modes and modulations
available to U.S. amateur licensees. It is logical that the written test
include something involving all those modes and modulations.

Try to remember that the FCC's test for an amateur radio license is
NOT an academic achievement test. It is NOT about how much
knowledge of radio is gained, it is all about proving the applicant to
the Commission on the Commission's standards for being licensed.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:



I'm an Extra too. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.


Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that
you don't use.

.. . . I wish I'd written that . . .

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio
services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I
operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver,
designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly
SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes"
beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an
artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio
is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union,
not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto-
matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and
don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that
experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or
realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other
radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year
I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB
transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's
company...both sadly SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various
"classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is
that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants.
Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a
guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those
"classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of
some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]




I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence,
and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more
than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for
the whole band.

Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the
whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this
idea impracticable.

In article , Alun
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and
don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that
experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or
realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other
radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year
I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB
transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's
company...both sadly SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various
"classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is
that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants.
Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a
guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those
"classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of
some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]




I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence,
and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more
than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for
the whole band.

All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory."

None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without
the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market.

I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain
how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution
using 10 KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother
asking them if they knew how a DDS works... :-)


Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the
whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this
idea impracticable.

Those vests (of the ones in here) are over-stuffed...