From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in
:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey

wrote:

I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.

I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go,
but I
wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could get
Elemnt 1
abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We all know
what
happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?

Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
groups on wireless standards (among other things).

Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
update of amateur radio regulations.

When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so
this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.

Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but
WTH!

That would be since 1913. I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
[ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
U.S. radio regulating agency was created]

The no-code-test amateur radio license advocacy began in
the late 1970s. That grew until the FCC (in copying other
countries' license classes) released FCC 90-53, the NPRM
for creation of the no-code-test Technician class. That was
in 1990 (first two digits indicate the year) and the Report &
Order granting the sixth license class was released in 1991.

If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is
an
argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As
long as
there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to be

over.

Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering
among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals.
Some of those, not receiving their (intrinsic?) due of respect
and admiration from others, grow livid with rage that such
arguments exist today. Poor babies.

The PCTA should be appeased. They've had their way
since 1912 amidst noble backing from Big Brother in
Newington and they demand capitulation to their wishes.

Power limits can't be enforced, but they are the right way to
distinguish
between ability levels, and different slices of the same band aren't.
The
former mitigates the msitakes of the less qualified much more
effectively,
and most people are relatively law abiding. If you had to be an Extra
to
own a big linear, most people would think twice.

The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was
to create the artificiality of some being better than others.
"Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and
titles. That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can
get to nobility in this American society.

The ARRL encouraged stepping up the "ladder of success"
in their printed propaganda for several reasons: 1. It was
something members and prospective members wanted to
hear, thus encouraging membership and renewal for same;
2. League hierarchy were conservative traditionalists and
they had all been morsemen long ago in their youth; feeling
that they were self-righteous role models they set up and
maintained morsemanship as the ultimate skill of radio
amateurs; 3. League lobbying of the FCC saved individual
radio amateurs from petitioning the government by
themselves, a complicated process prior to opening up of
the Internet to file petitions and comments within the last
decades. All other "reasons" for support of the "incentive"
licensing are holier-than-thou rationalizations by the PCTA.

What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio
activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity
involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however,
it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more
"superior." By having federal regulations support their
views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior.
Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing
must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones
live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas
and passed those requirements.

Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes
assume way too much authority for themselves. What
must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market
appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety
officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns.
Those who have a foolish need to show they are
"somebody" can purchase one and posture that they
are "official" and thus "very important." :-)

This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications
tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously
evolving in both technology and application. Governments
now have plenty of radios and communications to do
their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that
some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the
cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby.
Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage
and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it. But,
the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank,
status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just
commoners.

Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going. They are
"superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They
know what is good for everyone. :-)

wrote in news:1109453914.521433.288070
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in
m:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

I haven't made the proposal and if I did I suspect it would fall on
deaf ears. regardless, it was/is nothing more than my opinion about
something I would think is fair for Amateur Radio with incentive
licensing. without incentive licensing, take one general class exam
and become extra without code.

I didn't file my proposal either. I did have a petition ready to go,
but I wa stalked out of filing it by NCI, as they thought they could
get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle. We
all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?

Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
groups on wireless standards (among other things).

Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
update of amateur radio regulations.


That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM to
be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.

When it comes to the code/no code debate, my response has been
changed. Lately when someone tries to argue it my response has been
"Do away with all code,not for the good of amateur radio, but so this
25 year argument will finally come to an end.

Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of, but
WTH!

That would be since 1913.

Actually, both of us have the maths wrong. I meant 1927, but that's only 78
years. 1913 would be 92 years. 1927 was the year that the ITU made the
international requirement for the code test.

I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
[ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
U.S. radio regulating agency was created]


Not so. Not in 1927 anyway. There were a lot of people using phone back
then. AM, of course.

The no-code-test amateur radio license advocacy began in
the late 1970s. That grew until the FCC (in copying other
countries' license classes) released FCC 90-53, the NPRM
for creation of the no-code-test Technician class. That was
in 1990 (first two digits indicate the year) and the Report &
Order granting the sixth license class was released in 1991.


The big argument began in 1927. The code test was proposed by the US
delegation to the ITU as a quid pro quo for the recognition of ham radio as
a service, and their motion was carried. The US had already had a code test
since at least 1916 that I know of, so it wasn't much of a concession for
them. Other countries did not. The UK had no code test before 1927, and
between then and the war had an 'artificial antenna' licence, whereby you
could get a licence by practicing into a dummy load for six months to still
avoid the code test.

The various ITU conferences gradually rolled back the code requirement to
below 1GHz in 1937, 420MHz in 1947, 144MHz in 1967, 30MHz in 1979 and 0 MHz
in 2003. Australia introduced a no code licence in 1952, the UK in 1963 and
the US not until 1991, after many other countries had done so. The FCC did
attempt to promote a no-code licence in the 1970s, but gave up when opposed
by the ARRL (yes, I do have that the right way around!).

About 20 countries have removed the code test since 2003. Japan already for
many years had HF for all licences including the no code 10 Watt 4th class
licence, and Spain once in the past abolished the code test, but brought it
back when their hams couldn't get reciprocal licences elsewhere.

Even in the US I know for a fact that the contoversy was very much alive in
the '70s. But 1927 was the year it really began.

If there's one thing that we should all be able to agree on, this is an
argument that can only end in one way, and maybe not even then. As long
as there's a code test there will be an argument. I agree, it needs to
be

over.

Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering
among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals.
Some of those, not receiving their (intrinsic?) due of respect
and admiration from others, grow livid with rage that such
arguments exist today. Poor babies.

The PCTA should be appeased. They've had their way
since 1912 amidst noble backing from Big Brother in
Newington and they demand capitulation to their wishes.

Power limits can't be enforced, but they are the right way to
distinguish between ability levels, and different slices of the same
band aren't. The former mitigates the msitakes of the less qualified
much more effectively, and most people are relatively law abiding. If
you had to be an Extra to own a big linear, most people would think
twice.

The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was
to create the artificiality of some being better than others.
"Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and
titles. That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can
get to nobility in this American society.

The ARRL encouraged stepping up the "ladder of success"
in their printed propaganda for several reasons: 1. It was
something members and prospective members wanted to
hear, thus encouraging membership and renewal for same;
2. League hierarchy were conservative traditionalists and
they had all been morsemen long ago in their youth; feeling
that they were self-righteous role models they set up and
maintained morsemanship as the ultimate skill of radio
amateurs; 3. League lobbying of the FCC saved individual
radio amateurs from petitioning the government by
themselves, a complicated process prior to opening up of
the Internet to file petitions and comments within the last
decades. All other "reasons" for support of the "incentive"
licensing are holier-than-thou rationalizations by the PCTA.

What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio
activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity
involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however,
it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more
"superior." By having federal regulations support their
views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior.
Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing
must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones
live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas
and passed those requirements.

Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes
assume way too much authority for themselves. What
must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market
appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety
officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns.
Those who have a foolish need to show they are
"somebody" can purchase one and posture that they
are "official" and thus "very important." :-)

This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications
tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously
evolving in both technology and application. Governments
now have plenty of radios and communications to do
their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that
some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the
cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby.
Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage
and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it. But,
the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank,
status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just
commoners.

Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going. They are
"superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They
know what is good for everyone. :-)





Funny thing isn't it, ye olde tymmers in a relatively high tech hobby? It's
a good thing spark isn't still legal!

N3KIP

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 3:17 am
wrote in news:1109453914.521433.288070
:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in
:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey

wrote:

get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle.
We
all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?

Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
groups on wireless standards (among other things).

Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
update of amateur radio regulations.

That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM
to
be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.

NCI cannot have "failed" an NPRM that hasn't been released yet.

Actually it's been going on for at least 82 years that I know of,
but
WTH!

That would be since 1913.

Actually, both of us have the maths wrong. I meant 1927, but that's
only 78
years. 1913 would be 92 years. 1927 was the year that the ITU made the

international requirement for the code test.

The first U.S. radio regulating agency came into being in 1912.
There's been a small controvery in here about the first code
test for amateurs in here, others saying the code test began
a year after that agency was created.

2003 is the year in which the ITU revised most of S25, eliminating
the artificial requirement of morsemanship for an amateur radio
license having below-30-MHz privileges. That's a 76-year span
from 1927. Radio as a communications medium is only 108 years
old.

I don't think so. In 1913 amateur
radio was ALL about morse code. ARRL had its "president for
life" (H.P.Maxim) set to go but wasn't fully formed yet as an
actual local New England amateur radio club organization.
[ARRL was incorporated in 1914, two years after the first
U.S. radio regulating agency was created]

Not so. Not in 1927 anyway. There were a lot of people using phone
back
then. AM, of course.

In 1912, between 1909 (when the Radio Club of America started)
and 1912, morse code was about the ONLY way to communicate
on early radio. ARRL wasn't formed until 1914...as a local New
England radio club of 3 members...with Maxim as the leader who
thought it a neat idea to (virtually) "hack" the commercial telegram
services using their spark radios. :-)

In 1912 NOBODY was using the Reggie Fessenden AM system
of putting microphones in series with the antenna lead-in. :-)

I won't argue the CCITT "arguments" back in 1927. As you said,
the USA already had a morse code test then. The ARRL was
already 13 years old and on the ascendency, although NOT yet
the big "leader" in national amateur representation. Not yet
despite Maxim Going To Washington (!) to "restore ham radio"
from its WW1 shut-down. The Thomas H. White early USA
radio regulation history on the web has all of the early gory
details on that, several items the ARRL won't repeat about
themselves.

The various ITU conferences gradually rolled back the code requirement
to
below 1GHz in 1937, 420MHz in 1947, 144MHz in 1967, 30MHz in 1979 and
0 MHz
in 2003. Australia introduced a no code licence in 1952, the UK in
1963 and
the US not until 1991, after many other countries had done so. The FCC
did
attempt to promote a no-code licence in the 1970s, but gave up when
opposed
by the ARRL (yes, I do have that the right way around!).

I'm familiar with what the ARRL did on lobbying the FCC to make
the regulations "their way." :-)

Problem is, lots of League "Believers" get outraged whenever
someone points out their clay feet.

About 20 countries have removed the code test since 2003. Japan
already for
many years had HF for all licences including the no code 10 Watt 4th
class
licence, and Spain once in the past abolished the code test, but
brought it
back when their hams couldn't get reciprocal licences elsewhere.

Even in the US I know for a fact that the contoversy was very much
alive in
the '70s. But 1927 was the year it really began.

The turn-down of a no-code license by the FCC in the 1970s
pretty much quashed my interest in U.S. amateur radio (along
with thousands of others). The first personal computer kits of
1975-1976 steered my interests away from radio (also done
by thousands of others). That was the blazing of a new path
leading to the future, not the recreation of what others have done
in copying the pioneers of the airwaves back in the past.

1927 may have been the international year of controversy but
in the USA the code test has been there since the first U.S.
radio regulating agency...92 years of the 108-year-old
existance of radio.

Funny thing isn't it, ye olde tymmers in a relatively high tech hobby?
It's
a good thing spark isn't still legal!

If so, the ham magazines would have ads for computer controlled,
software-defined SPARK transceivers! :-) The olde-tymers
would be bragging up a storm of arcs and sparks, using knife
switches and using point-to-point wiring (all with flexible coils on
them) with polished woodcraft bases gleaming in candlelight.

If you check out the ARRL website you will see that QST is
starting a "new feature" of explaining what all those knobs on
the front panels are doing to the readership. Good grief, what
is a "high tech hobby" coming to?!?!?

It apparently has boiled down to the League's editors that most
of their membership are a bunch of technical ignorants who
never learned anything beyond being whoopee-wonderful
morsemen. Rather disgusting when they make like "superior"
beings because they passed a high-rate morse test once.

Wow, an extra license that even a 9-year-old can pass! Lots
of "incentive" to "join the amateur brotherhood" by learning
morse code (and be just like a 9-year-old).

It's worse when some insufferable, self-righteous "mama"
wants to "discipline children as parents do" in here.

wrote in news:1109527398.947541.9760
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Feb 27 2005 3:17 am
wrote in news:1109453914.521433.288070
:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in
m:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

get Elemnt 1 abolished without going through this whole NPRM cycle.
We all know what happened to that idea. BTW, where is Carl anyway?

Carl Stevenson has been very busy working with the IEEE 802
groups on wireless standards (among other things).

Please fill us in, Alun, what happened with that NPRM cycle?
Last I saw, NO NPRM had been released yet concerning test
element 1. The only one released was a general "housekeeping"
update of amateur radio regulations.

That's the thing, we are in that cycle, but still waiting for the NPRM
to be issued. NCI hoped to short circuit this process, but failed.

NCI cannot have "failed" an NPRM that hasn't been released yet.

They were trying to get administrative action, i.e. no petitions, no NPRM,
just have the FCC remove the requirement. Not surprisingly, they failed.
Now we have 19 petitions and a long wait for an NPRM


lots snipped

It's worse when some insufferable, self-righteous "mama"
wants to "discipline children as parents do" in here.




Alun

They were trying to get administrative action, i.e. no petitions, no NPRM,
just have the FCC remove the requirement. Not surprisingly, they failed.
Now we have 19 petitions and a long wait for an NPRM



And it's probably a low priority item on the FCC's agenda
anyway. Whenever they get around to it....

wrote:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Feb 26 2005 6:48 pm
Buck wrote in
:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:11:18 GMT, robert casey

wrote:

Apparently the argument causes much pain and suffering
among the already-tested-for-code-and-passed individuals.

It would seem to have caused some pain and suffering in at least one
non-code tested individual. After all, nobody was written more here
about morse code tesing in amateur radio than you...and you aren't even
involved in amateur radio. Poor baby.


The major reason for any sort of "incentive" licensing was
to create the artificiality of some being better than others.

Incentive license was put into place by the FCC. You'll remember them
as the agency responsible for amateur radio licensing and enforcement.
The "some being better than others" was and is quite real. Those
passing more difficult theory exams and (for some classes) higher speed
morse exams were rewarded with more spectrum. Those like yourself, who
never passed any amateur radio licensing exams, had access to no amateur
radio spectrum.

"Upgrades" are rewarded with more status, privilege, and
titles.

More titles? Really?


That's very "feel good" for them, as close as we can
get to nobility in this American society.

That it chafes you cause me some mild entertainment.

What seems to have been put aside is that amateur radio
activity is basically a hobby, a personal recreation activity
involving radio, something done for fun. To many, however,
it is a self-righteous quest to be a "somebody," to be more
"superior." By having federal regulations support their
views, they fool themselves into believing they are superior.
Ergo, certain "qualifications" for amateur radio licensing
must remain forever (or as long as the "superior" ones
live) because those "superiors" bought into the old ideas
and passed those requirements.

More "Fox and the cashews" from our resident curmudgeon? Why are you
worried about who might be superior to whom in amateur radio, Leonard.
You aren't part of amateur radio. Even if you were, there'd always be
many, regardless of license class, whose skills exceeded your own.

Those who have passed the "mighty" tests sometimes
assume way too much authority for themselves.

What about those who have passed none of the tests, have no amateur
radio licenses and who are not FCC employees? Do they ever attempt to
assume authority over amateur radio for themselves? Would you be such a
fellow?

What
must be the peak (or perhaps nadir) of that is the market
appearance of radio "badges" resembling public safety
officers shields but marked with amateur radio callsigns.
Those who have a foolish need to show they are
"somebody" can purchase one and posture that they
are "official" and thus "very important." :-)

Don't worry, Len. I'm sure the manufacturers will still sell you one.
You can just leave the callsign portion blank. :-)

This is the year 2005 and radio as a communications
tool is 108+ years old. Radio has been continuously
evolving in both technology and application. Governments
now have plenty of radios and communications to do
their tasks, outnumbering amateurs. It is high time that
some olde-tyme hammes realign themselves to the
cold, hard facts that amateur radio remains a hobby.

How about if you "realign" yourself to the fact that amateur radio
remains a hobby in which you are not a participant.

Amateur radio wasn't created in the olde-tymer's visage
and it should be open to all who care to enjoy it.

....and who can pass the exams to do so.

But,
the olde-tymer's don't want that...they lose their rank,
status, title, and privilege if reduced to being just
commoners.

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Olde-tymers MUST keep the argument going.

Actually, you are the guy who MUST keep the argument going. At present,
it isn't going your way.

They are
"superior" and keep reminding everyone that only They
know what is good for everyone. :-)

That's awfully cute, Len. You aren't even involved and you keep telling
us that you know what's best for amateur radio. :-)



Dave

Dave Heil wrote:

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.

He is the one who proposed "No Test International."

Dave

bb

bb wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.

He is the one who proposed "No Test International."

Actually, you're just acting silly. Jim made no such proposal.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in news:4221EBFE.2A406BF0
@earthlink.net:

bb wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.

He is the one who proposed "No Test International."

Actually, you're just acting silly. Jim made no such proposal.

Dave K8MN


He did. Of coutse he was being a devil's advocate, but he was indeed the
one to suggest this.

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in news:4221EBFE.2A406BF0
@earthlink.net:

bb wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

You sound like the kind of guy who'd just open 'er up to any guy who
shows any interest at all in amateur radio. No tests. No
qualifications.

Actually, that would be Jim Miccolis, N2EY.

He is the one who proposed "No Test International."

Actually, you're just acting silly. Jim made no such proposal.

Dave K8MN


He did. Of coutse he was being a devil's advocate, but he was indeed the
one to suggest this.

It might have seemed that way to you. It isn't evidenced below. In
fact,
someone else suggested it:

__________________________________________________ ________________________
In article .net,
"Bill Sohl"

writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Clint"
rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes:

sending and receiving CW isn't a building block
to anything else.....

Yes, it is.

First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air.

Come on Jim. that's a self fullfilling argument.

It's a plain and simple fact.

My point, and I know
you know this, is that morse knowledge is not needed in any manner as
a foundation, stepping stone, or whatever to any body or radio
knowledge
or concepts.

It's not an *absolute* need. But it is a big help for amateurs who want
to
learn about radio. That's my point.

Although other
services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it
extensivley,
and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station,
not a
station in another service. Note that the Morse Code tests are at a
very
basic level. They're entry-level, nothing more.

Are you afraid that without a code test, people will "pollute the HF
airwaves" with bad morse?

Nope, not at all.

Second, if someone wants to actually design and build radio
equipment,
having
skill in Morse Code permits them to use almost anything from very
simple
to
very sophisticated equipment to good advantage. Would you expect a
newcomer to
radio to build an SSB transceiver as a first project?

They can build whatever they want.

Doesn't answer the question.

If they want to start with a simple
morse
Xmitter then they will learn at least enough morse to be able to use
it.
If they don't self train themselves, the rig will be useless to them.
As
another
point of reference, when I was going for my AAS in electricl
technology we
built a 10 watt CW rig as part of the lab work. We tested it using a
dummy
load and no one had to know even one character of morse to do the lab
work.

And without Morse skill, that project had no practical use once the lab
was
over. With Morse skill, it could have been a very useful transmitter.

There's a big difference between a lab experiment that is done purely
as a
learning tool, and a practical project that not only helps someone
learn *and*
results in a useful radio device.

now, the electrical principals of what a CW
transmission is, and a knowledge test of that is a good idea, but
that's comparing apples and oranges.

Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person
wants to
do is
operate manufactured radios? If someone doesn't want to build a rig,
why
should
they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?

IF that's what you believe then go start NTI (No Theory Int'l).

I'm asking a question. *All* license requirements have to justify
themselves,
don't they? Or is that only true for Morse code tests?

I think most of the PCTA
is being disingenuous when they come up with "good reasons"
to keep CW testing alive;

Why?

Actually, they haven't scored even a single point in the arguments
made to the FCC now or in the past.

Has nothing to do with "disingenous".

I think the true deeper reason lies
somewhere in the "I had to do it so everybody should" relm,
as i've stated before.

You can think what you want, but you're mistaken on that account.

Exactly what is it that the PCTAs fear if there is NO morse test
at all?

I don't "fear" anything from code test removal. My *concern* is the
continuing
downward trend in requirements and qualifications.

73 de Jim, N2EY.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

It isn't here, though someone else mentions it:

__________________________________________________ _______________________



In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Actually as a point of interest, and maybe a little trolling, Just
WHY
should there be testing for a ham license?

Because we already know what happens with no testing.

Isn't limiting access to the Airwaves to only those who pass some
kind
of test Elitist?

Nope.

What of those who simply aren't smart enough to pass a test? are
they
not human and have rights?

Everyone has the right to take the test. Nobody has the right to a
guaranteed
pass on the test.

As for RF safety, I would point to the successful efforts of
Motorcycle
riders to abolish helmet rules. It should be the individual's
responsibility to decide if RF safety matters are important to him or
her.

Actually, that makes sense IF the effects can be contained to just the
person
making the decision. But that's rarely the case.

As for mode specific questions, they have no business asking me
about
modes of operation that I am not interested in.

I learned about televison screen aspect ratio and interlaced scanning
because
it was in the Extra study guide back when. I've never operated ATV.

No Test International could be born now!

Thoughts?

See my rant on replacing the code test with a Smith Chart test.

73 de Jim, N2EY
__________________________________________________ _______________________

I think that perhaps you're mistaken. Perhaps you can come up with a
statement by Jim advocating such.

Dave K8MN