Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have.

The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly.
He's wrong, of course.

Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away
soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in forat to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to
produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early
summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have.

The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly.
He's wrong, of course.

Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year
in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles
with stick shifts every year.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

Read again the following:
The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific
subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and
still get a passing test grade.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably
going away soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

It still isn't a separate exclusive test. If you get all
the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss
a greater percentage of electronic questions then
if it was a separate subject area test.

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Works for me.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to
produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early
summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have.

The anonymouse "John Smith" has claimed that repeatedly.
He's wrong, of course.

Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year
in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles
with stick shifts every year.

Out of total sales in the millions. A tiny niche market. In fact,
almost all cars can be ordered with an automatic transmission, but many
*cannot* be ordered with a manual transmission.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the
average person does not already posess.

How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice
modes? How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard
modes?

What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to
learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some
folks so much.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse
Code is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

Read again the following:
The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific
subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and
still get a passing test grade.

That depends entirely on what you consider a "subject area". If you
define "subject area" as "questions about SSB voice", one could
probably get all the questions about SSB voice wrong and still pass -
*if* almost all of the others were answered correctly.

But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's
doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong
and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered
correctly.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably
going away soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

It still isn't a separate exclusive test.

Doesn't have to be.

If you get all
the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss
a greater percentage of electronic questions then
if it was a separate subject area test.

But you can't miss all of them.

The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot
of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing
involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm,
"depth" becomes somewhat questionable).

It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask!

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Works for me.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes six months to
produce the R&O, coming out in early spring 2006...effective early summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

The Pool is still ongoing.


One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that
they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month -
always midmonth or something like that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask!


Since it serves no useful purpose, such a test would be ludicrous (and thus "too
much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself.


So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?


There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. Why in heavens name would we establish
them at this point?

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: "K=D8=88B" on Sun 28 Aug 2005 17:47


wrote

So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

There are no such subbands on MF/HF now. Why in heavens name would we est=
ablish
them at this point?

Simple reason: To keep the MINORITY happy, the minority who still
believe in the efficacy, the nobility of purpose ascribed to the
morse code mode.

The claimed efficacy is that "it will get through when nothing else
will." In that case it will work THROUGH any QRM and therefore
doesn't NEED any exclusivity.

The claimed nobility of purpose ("first mode in radio" "must be
treasured as traditional") is nothing but a rationalization on
the PCTA's part to keep even a vestige of CONTROL over regulations
that they've grown accustomed to having. THEY are the "nobility,"
not the mode and all must bow to THEIR wishes. THEY rule. Not.

If morse code cognition is "so easy to learn, all can do it," then
WHY MUST THERE BE A FEDERAL TEST REQUIRED FOR IT? Something so
"easy" can be taught in code schools OUTSIDE of federal jurisdiction
and supervision. NO FEDERAL TEST IS NEEDED FOR PRESERVATION.

The PCTA want to retain CONTROL. They want to have their elite
EXCLUSIVITY in the radio playground. It makes them feel "happy" to
keep "undesireables" out of THEIR turf. They feel they somehow
"own" the right to exclusive EM bandspace. They are the Radio
Royals. Their blood is bluest of the blue.

Blue blood is caused by oxygen deprivation. Oxygen deprivation
leads to malfunctioning thinking. QED. Merde.

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "K?B" on Sun 28 Aug 2005 17:47

Idiotic diatribe deleted.

plonk

Dang not much else left is there?

Dan/W4NTI

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an
empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too
much to ask!

Since it serves no useful purpose,

It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had
the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car.

such a test would be
ludicrous (and thus "too
much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself.

Apply that same logic to the written tests.

Explain why it's necessary to learn all the stuff necessary to
pass Elements 2, 3 and 4, just to operate QRP CW on 14.020 MHz.

So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only
subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

There are no such subbands on MF/HF now.

There should be.

Why in heavens name would we establish
them at this point?

Several reasons. One is that we're about to unleash a lot of
hams with no Morse Code skill upon the bands where Morse Code
is primarily used by hams.

But the more important reason, IMHO, is that as amateur radio
becomes more diverse and varied, the regulations of necessity
become more complex.

There was a time, a bit less than 60 years ago, when 99.99% of amateur
radio operations used either Morse Code or AM voice. Almost all
operations were "simplex" too - satellites, repeaters, and other
automatic stations were in the future.

The regulations back then were simpler, because the range of amateur
activities were fewer.

Then hams in considerable numbers began to use SSB voice. And RTTY,
though the number of RTTY stations was limited by the
cost, size and complexity of an RTTY setup. (Yes, we all know
The Armed Forces used lots of RTTY, which they called RATT.
They also had somewhat greater resources than the average ham).

Then hams began to use SSTV, and FM, and satellites, and repeaters, and
RTTY modes besides five-level Baudot. And packet
and pactor and PSK and HELL and WSJT and all sorts of other stuff.

Now we have a whole tower of babel of modes. That complexity
would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected
space for good old Morse Code.

Hans, I know you think the best system would be to simply allow all
authorized modes anywhere in the ham bands, by any licensed radio
amateur. The reality of such a system might be very
different from your imagined nirvana.

btw, FCC doesn't go for that system either.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

The computer has made most everything simple, hassle free and even
children can do it. If you have a ham right and a computer with a sound
card this page:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...s/4477/?200528

will get you started. There is no need for expensive equip. A SW
receiver, homebrew transmitter and a homebrew linear with you computer and
you are off into the ether.

Old hams trying to scare everyone off is ridiculous... it is childs' play...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 15:03:39 -0700, N2EY wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote

It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an
empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too
much to ask!

Since it serves no useful purpose,

It would serve the useful purpose of making sure drivers had
the basic skills required to drive a manual transmission car.

such a test would be
ludicrous (and thus "too
much to ask"). Couldn't have stated it better myself.

Apply that same logic to the written tests.

Explain why it's necessary to learn all the stuff necessary to
pass Elements 2, 3 and 4, just to operate QRP CW on 14.020 MHz.

So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only
subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

There are no such subbands on MF/HF now.

There should be.

Why in heavens name would we establish
them at this point?

Several reasons. One is that we're about to unleash a lot of
hams with no Morse Code skill upon the bands where Morse Code
is primarily used by hams.

But the more important reason, IMHO, is that as amateur radio
becomes more diverse and varied, the regulations of necessity
become more complex.

There was a time, a bit less than 60 years ago, when 99.99% of amateur
radio operations used either Morse Code or AM voice. Almost all
operations were "simplex" too - satellites, repeaters, and other
automatic stations were in the future.

The regulations back then were simpler, because the range of amateur
activities were fewer.

Then hams in considerable numbers began to use SSB voice. And RTTY,
though the number of RTTY stations was limited by the
cost, size and complexity of an RTTY setup. (Yes, we all know
The Armed Forces used lots of RTTY, which they called RATT.
They also had somewhat greater resources than the average ham).

Then hams began to use SSTV, and FM, and satellites, and repeaters, and
RTTY modes besides five-level Baudot. And packet
and pactor and PSK and HELL and WSJT and all sorts of other stuff.

Now we have a whole tower of babel of modes. That complexity
would benefit from some rules changes. Like a protected
space for good old Morse Code.

Hans, I know you think the best system would be to simply allow all
authorized modes anywhere in the ham bands, by any licensed radio
amateur. The reality of such a system might be very
different from your imagined nirvana.

btw, FCC doesn't go for that system either.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote

Hans, I know you think the best system would be to
simply allow all authorized modes anywhere in the
ham bands, by any licensed radio amateur.

Now that's a STRETCH!

I do believe that the FCC over-manages our allocations on most bands with their
arbitrary slicing/dicing by mode/license class, without any obvious regard to
"market forces". I'd like to see that cumbersome system replaced with a
bandplanning model similar to many UHF/VHF bands where the users (that'd be guys
like you and me) work out band plans which can be dynamically adjusted to meet
our changing needs.

The current US plan which allocates virtually 100% of our spectrum (less some
minor slices near 5MHz and 219MHz) to narrowband CW, yet restricts every other
mode regardless of popularity to smaller segments, is so backwards as to be
spherical in its backwardness (backward from every possible viewing angle).

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

It would serve the useful purpose of making
sure drivers had the basic skills required to
drive a manual transmission car.

There currently is no such test, but drivers who decide to use manual
transmissions seem to learn that skill without a government test.

Similarly if there is no Morse skill test, hams who decide to use that mode will
take it upon themselves to learn that skill without the need for government
testing.



That complexity would benefit from some rules changes.
Like a protected space for good old Morse Code.

Morse code currently enjoys free access to essentially every Hz of amateur
spectrum. Since CW is your (and my) favorite mode, that's what Martha Stewart
might call "a good thing®" Would you support removal of that free access in
exchange for "protected space" pro-rated by bandwidth relative to "protected
space" for other popular modes?

For example, a good fast CW signal might require "protection" for 150Hz and a
properly operated SSB station might require "protection" for 2400Hz. Based on
that ratio and your notion of "protected space" for each mode, for each 10KHz
protected segment of CW spectrum, SSB operators should have a protected segment
of 160KHz.

Be careful what you wish for.

73, de Hans, K0HB