In article . net, robert casey
writes:

I was transmitting RF on HF, VHF, UHF, and microwaves in the
1950s. Again in the 1960s, then in the 1970s (including LF and
VLF), and in the 1980s and 1990s. Earlier this year (which
includes the 2000s) I was talking on HF from a sailboat.

I've done it in the military, in civilian life, for the U.S. government
and for private business (a little of which includes my partner-
ship in a private business), and with local utilities...not to mention
on land, in the air, and on water.

Not a single second of "operating" time...Just another Uncle Sam Green
radio mechanic.

"Logs" are only required by lumber companies.

The only non-amateur "logging" required is in radio broadcasting (which
I've been doing for WREX-TV, WMCW, WRRR) and (formerly) for
certain communications conducted by corporations (RCA EAS Division).
Those have been duly noted on the back of my First Class Radio-
Telephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License and signed off by
the Chief Engineers or responsible Staff Engineer...and witnessed by
an FCC Field Office when the License was up for renewal.

Thus Len should have enough smarts to handle the amateur
writtens, up to extra. And spend a few weeks to learn 5wpm code,
and he could get the ham license. Otherwise he's an amateur
troll... :-)

Everyone seems to be of the fixed mindset (imaginary department)
that I am desiring to obtain an amateur radio license. Not true.

My continuing advocacy is simply the removal of the morse code
test requirement for any FCC-issued radio operator license.

Since removal or retention of that morse code test element falls
under the radio amateur POLICY subject matter, I am here for
such advocacy...as well as in other venues.

Nearly all individual correspondents in here are heavily focussed
on their own personal experiences and viewpoints (as well as
emphasizing their own alleged "expertise," aka bragging points).
They have difficulty in the concept of debate on a SUBJECT rather
than personality fights involving denigrating personalities who
don't agree with them.

Debating a SUBJECT rather than the personalities of the debaters
should not normally be difficult. Unfortunately, the rather extreme
polarization of individuals with thin emotional skins tends to destroy
debates, rendering them to mere personality fights that are all too
common in here.

I am not shy on expressing displeasure at the countless personal
attacks posted here in "response" from polarized individuals who
abhor anyone with opinions differing from theirs. As a semi-
professional writer in addition to being a professional electronics
design engineer (of some experience in radio communications of
many kinds), my replies to such biased, personally-insulting
individuals is a rather easy task. Such provides a bit of personal
"entertainment" as well; if I abhor anything it is the rigid mindset
of the extremely polarized self-righteous individuals who cannot
tolerate (ever) any opinion other than their own. :-)

Well over two decades ago I became an advocate of elimination of
the morse code test for a license. Not for myself, despite how
"strange" that may appear to nearly everyone else. It is a SUBJECT
which can stand on its own. That's not so among what seems to be
the majority of radio amateurs in here. :-) By all the millions of
words posted by all, especially those long-time licensees of the morse
persuasion, there is NO debate. All shall continue for newcomers
as it did for those old-timers when they entered amateur radio long
ago. Those same individuals want to squelch debate fully off and
misdirect all message content with perjorative postings on personalities
of their "opponents." They have an imaginary territorial imperative
that must be protected at all costs.

An example of the misdirection into personal pejoratives are nearly
all the postings of "K4YZ" in here. Case in point: My description
of the operations of the then-3rd-largest Army radio station in
ACAN a half century ago. I did that to illustrate the "plain, simple
fact" that the U.S. military did NOT plan on using morse code
mode for fixed, point-to-point long-distance message handling back
a half century ago. Such messaging made up the overwhelming
bulk of military "traffic" worldwide at those times...as it does now.
But now such "traffic" is found on DSN terminals which rarely use
any HF radio for network linking.

"K4YZ" lacked such military radio communications experience,
despite serving considerably longer than I did. He was ignorant of
military communications history and even modern small-unit radio
communications of today. He tried to misdirect my statements as
personal bragging, trying to lie about military occupation specialty,
and a host of other ugly statements, all of which was a number of
lies originated by him. Not even close to debate, just a lot of
meaningless personal insults from him.


Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY activity, engaged in for
personal pleasure and not for pecuniary compensation. As such it
is NOT any sort of "life saving" or "emergency" radio service.
It, like most any other human activity, CAN be used in emergencies
but the Basis and Purpose as outlined in Part 97.1 Definitions
does NOT establish itself as either an "emergency service" nor as
some kind of vital radio communications activity needed by the
nation. Really.

Emergency comms is listed as one of several reasons the FCC
does ham radio licenses and allocates the bandwidth for us.

The FCC does not allocate bandwidth for "emergency comms"
in amateur radio other than the Alaskan emergency frequency.
FCC allocates several frequencies and bands intended solely for
emergency use, nearly all in coordination with international
radio communication agreements. Those are not in "ham bands."

The five definitions of amateur radio activities in Part 97, Title 47
C.F.R., are simple and most extremely general in subject. You
can read into those anything you want but let's face the facts
that most radio service part definitions are general in nature and
almost always politically motivated. "Political" in that they
provide some kind of baseline for disputes and competition with
other radio services as well as in the curious patois of the legal
profession.

Now for "emergency comms," a look into Parts 1 and 2 of Title 47
C.F.R. (as well as repetition of mention in other Parts) will reveal
that there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency or
any mode to perform REAL emergency communications. Self-
styled "radio cops" will come unglued at that, I suppose, but then
they were never properly glued down to begin with...

Did the majority of amateur radio hobbyists get into ham radio
BECAUSE of the "emergency comms" ability? I doubt it. Acronym
ARS doesn't stand for "Amergency Radio Service." Can amateur
radio be used for emergency communications? Of course. It has
been used that way in the past. However, there are many bands
and frequencies other than ham radio ones allocated for that purpose
and there are hundreds of thousands of radios already used by
Public Safety Radio Services expressly for such emergency and
protective use.

No all hams will have working equipment in a regional
disaster, but some will. And ham radio doesn't require
infrastructure (like cell phones do) to work.

Careful. That is starting to drift off into the usual emotional fantasy
wish-fulfillment kind of thing that so many do. Think a moment.

Police agencies, fire departments, medical installations do not
have direct tie-ins with amateur radio. Neither do utility
companies, transport industries, contractor businesses and all
other entities which are DIRECTLY affected with emergencies.
Military and National Guard units have a nebulous tie-in through
MARS, but MARS frequencies are just outside ham bands. The
military has adequate communications means on its own and can
cope with large local and regional emergency aid. Yes, all those
agencies can be contacted by telephone...but the telephone is
part of the existing non-amateur infrastructure. :-)

There are several solutions already practiced by all those agencies.
The Greater Los Angeles area has had a working Disaster center for
a decade, already proven in several local emergencies (including the
Northridge Earthquake). That ties in ALL local government agencies
who regularly practice drilling and checking out of disaster-coping
plans; that assumes that SOME of the infrastructure already survives
(including the telephone system with its cell sites). The state of
California has the ECS, Emergency Communications System, and
the ECS will accept any system, any person as a volunteer. Since
California has already experienced a tsunami nearly destroying a
northern seacoast town, planning and drilling includes such disasters
in addition to the wildfires and earthquakes. The federal government
has SHARES (for "shared resources") which makes use of roughly a
thousand federal HF stations nationwide as well as around the world.

Of those groupings and of many other local, regional emergency
groupings, the ARE an infrastructure. In order for local amateur radio
operators and equipment to be effective, they must operate WITH
that infrastructure, that existing organization. They must learn to
integrate with dozens of existing local and regional agencies who
all have their own non-amateur radio equipment.

The "infrastructure" fails? No. It is there and survives. Yes, that
infrastructure can be altered by a disaster but it is far more adaptable
and robust than individual radio amateur hobbyists. Hams have to
learn and accept working with other agencies, not to day-dream
about being some lone hero saving the whatever.

A car that survived will provide 12V power, which most
rigs are designed to run off of. And you also need hams
outside the disaster area to talk to.

Okay, lets consider a REAL emergency, such as a tsunami hitting
a coastal community. Some of the first communications out of that
area is an initial damage assessment, medical aid, requests for
earth-moving equipment, transportation of various kinds, perhaps
requests for food supplies (there could be other things). "Health
and welfare" messages of a personal nature are LOW on the priority
list. Can any ham inside or outside an emergency area handle all
the various items contained in that initial messaging with any ease
AND accuracy? Probably not. The existing agencies want
communications that are accurate, clear, that will get through NOW.
Initial emergency aid requests are immediate. Lives may be at
stake in that immediacy. That wouldn't be some kind of Field Day
contest in a local park outing kind of thing.

Medical workers IN an emergency area will want to talk to medical
workers outside of the area, directly to avoid any mistakes in requests
for supplies or other medical aid. They can talk "medical." If there is
earth-moving equipment needed to push back damage, those
specialists will want to talk outside to other specialists. They can talk
"bulldozer." And so forth, for all other occupations that would be of
aid. Individual hams wouldn't have the knowledge to effect clear,
error-free communications with ease for everything that is needed.
Those that DO have the knowledge must be able to communicate
directly with their counterparts outside of the area. Those could use
their OWN radios and radio networks. Those exist. Amateur radio
isn't the only radio resource and there is no guarantee that it would
survive better than other radio services' equipment. The reverse is
more likely true. The scenario of the lone ham hero saving the village
is wonderful, emotionally-stirring fiction, but it remains fiction. Real
emergencies aren't fictitious. They need aid agencies who can work
together, plan together, drill together, and keep on practicing.