On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35:07 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:

Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then?

I still find this whole thing another thinly designed bandwidth grab,
when in reality is that the system concept is not working. Seems like
grass is greener stuff to me, unless there is something majik about 700
MHz, and the TV channels.

We heard the same mazurka about the 800 MHz channels ten years ago.
Even amongst those clients of ours who went for 800 MHz systems,
some of those actually work well as a regional public safety
intercommunication system when designed and used correctly.

One of the major pronlems that seems to surface every time in every
field is "turf wars" a.k.a. "protect my local interests".

Notwithstanding the extortionate user fees paid to the agency who
holds the actual license, the only ones who really profited from
that exercise was Motorola. (APCO members on here will certainly
recognize this.)

Enter now 700 MHz stage-left......

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:02:19 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Two things:

Thing #1) I think "the rest of the nation" stayed pretty well connected.
Regional public service interoperability at the incident was the huge gaping
problem area. (As it was 9/11 and any number of other incidents.)

The very thing that the 800 MHz NPSPAC channels were supposed to
provide. What did the regional (state) NPSPAC delegates do at the
meetings but drink coffee laced with chicory? At least in
California we designated quite a few channels just for that purpose
and every (800 MHz) radio of every agency was supposed to have them
installed, tested, and working (a software "install"), and a lot of
Federal grant money went in to ensuring that.

Or was the problem that they didn't get around to installing 800 MHz
systems even when everyone else did while grant money was available?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From: Frank Gilliland on Sep 20, 4:09 am

On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, "

snip


Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy
is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY.

Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the
International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23),
satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including
Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for
a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13).

"IN USE," Frank. :-)

I do not find any reference to manual morse code radiotelegraphy
in Part 22, Public Mobile Radio Service. "Codes" are stated,
but those are NOT "morse codes."

Part 23, International Fixed Public Radio Service, does have
reference to manual morse code (International variety, same as
defined for amateur radio) IF and only IF the transmitter license
is specifically designated as "radiotelegraph" with that emission.

I do not find any specific reference to manual morse code in
Part 25, Satellite Communications Radio Service. Where is the
requirement for a commercial radiotelegrapher license there?
Note: Satellite Communications allocated bands are all in the
microwave region and that is highly unlikely to be used with
manual on-off keying of a transmitter.

Part 13 defines ALL the Commercial Radio Operator licenses and
is not a radio service per se. Radiotelegraph (Commercial)
licenses require specific skill levels tested for each of three
classes. Radiotelephone (Commercial) and GMDSS operator
licenses do NOT require manual morse code skill testing.

Yes, there are automatic morse code keyers in use in various
radio services still, such as in Aviation Radio Service, about
as many as there were such stations a half century ago. As such
they are satisfying very OLD regulatory requirements and have all
the usefulness of teats on a boar hog. Those keep on working
because they are simple repetitive appliances to a transmitter,
no different (but less complex) than a "fox test" generator for
TTY. Pilots of aircraft don't "identify" VOR radionavigation
transmitters by morse code in normal use, they simply dial up
the channel as shown on their aeronautical charts and the ground
station is either there or not there; frequency/channel
assignments have been done to prevent interference with other
ground radionavigation frequencies/channels even at the extreme
distances possible with high altitude flying.

I wrote "IN USE" in all captitals on purpose. Where, other
than on the Great Lakes in maritime service, is morse code USED
for communications in the United States?

I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a
receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required-
to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication
-can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both)
should the automatic systems fail.

The ORIGINAL morse code was all numbers and "recorded" by an
ink pen on paper. No hearing was required. Morse's financial
backer, Alfred Vail, is said to have suggested the addition of
letters and punctuation plus making shorter code characters
in line with printers' type case arrangements.

The early WIRED telegraph systems primarily used MANUAL
transmission and reception. Very long distance services, such
as by undersea cable, used recorded transmission and reception
primarily to increase throughput, allowing brief breaks for
operators to answer more important calls of nature.

Punched paper tape was in use for TTY by 1904. That year
marks the first recorded instance of demonstration of an
Exclusive-OR "scrambling" of one clear-text message with a
"keying" tape (duplicate at the receiving end) for
encryption by non-crypto-specialist operators. P-tape has
been standard on TTY and RTTY message communications for
well over a half century. It is quick, convenient, and one
TTY operator could tend a dozen P-tape TTY machines in
continuous duty. Electromechanical teleprinters are on
the way to extinction, replaced by better, faster all-
electronic message means.

The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio.

It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal.

Doubtful.

It WILL eventually become terminal. The last mighty macho
morseman will have the last morse code key pried out of
cold, dead fingers. It will wind up as exhibits in a
museum, those exhibits already in progress.

Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio
communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it
was invented for -wire- telegraphy.

I've been reminding folks of that for years. 1844 is the year
the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system went into operation.
COMMERCIAL (i.e., professional, service for money) I might add.

It has also been used extensively
with optical and other types of communication.

Not "extensively" except in maritime talk-between-ships by
light blinker. Signal flags are traditional in navies but
those are not "morse code." Two-flag (two-torch at night)
manual semaphore was used in the U.S. Army prior to our
Civil War; the torch over crossed signal flags is still the
collar insignia of the Army Signal Corps. However, that was
NOT by "morse code" but by position of the semaphore
indicators relative to the operator's body to denote the
various characters.

Various forms of semaphore signaling, even to construction of
networks for same, was done for over a century PRIOR to the
first wired telegraphy systems. NONE of those used "morse
code" anywhere close to what morse code is today.

Native American Indian smoke signals did NOT use "morse code."

The electronic "remote control" generally uses a pulse train
code to control a variety of electronics using infra-red
"carrier" or an RF carrier. That is by on-off keying but
such keying has NEVER used any "morse code." On-off keying
of a carrier is a supply-economic for battery-powered remotes.

It has existed since
before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of
radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for
radio.

"Morse code" predated the first demonstration of radio as a
communications medium by 52 years of USE.

There are NO working morse code telegraph circuits in the
United States in continuous communications service. NONE.
It has been an internal practice in commercial communications
to denote teleprinter services as "telegraph" for over a half
century, leading some to presume that such "telegraph" services
still "use morse code modes." They do not.

But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue
to use it.

Yes, and riding horses is still done in equestrian pursuits
(but not as an everyday transport), smoothbore musketry and
bows-arrows are still used for hunting (but not as a regular
means of killing game), and parks still have real steam train
rides (but not for regular passenger conveyance). Until the
electronic terminals became economic, the electromechanical
teleprinter systems carried the vast majority of message
communications for over a half century...for telegrams, for
government, military, business, commerce, and private
communications.

Some hobbyists still insist on using vacuum tube circuitry
for low-power (relatively speaking) uses in radio, despite
the proven fact that solid-state circuit design results in
lower power demand, smaller physical size, more economy,
and generally superior performance.

Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the
code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I
also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the
written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching
(from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about
the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that?

On the contrary, the common PCTA expression is that the Pool
of published questions has "dumbed down" amateur radio license
examinations to an absurd level. [Pools exist for both VEC
and COLEM] They illogically connect dropping of the code test
with "dropping of the written test" by direct statement or by
infrerence. They also forget that the VEC Question Pool
Committee devises ALL the Pool questions and answers, said VEC
being composed of licensed radio amateurs. The FCC now
specifies only a minimum number of questions per test element,
does not differentiate to minimum number per kind of question.
There has been a virtual enormous quantity of bitching/moaning
about the allegedly "dumbed-down" written test elements, some
bitching/moaning at a vitriolic level.

The current hot topic in United States amateur radio policy
is NPRM 05-143 on the elimination/retention of the morse code
test. That NPRM does NOT state that written test elements
will be changed. Focus, please.

If you wish to Petition the FCC to change this alleged "dumb-
down" issue, feel free. The FCC even explains the procedure
for Petitioning in their regulations, Title 47 Code of Federal
Regulations. Meanwhile, contact the VEC QPC for changes to
the present-day multiple-choice public question-answer Pool.

From: Michael Coslo on Sep 20, 8:09 am

Frank Gilliland wrote:

Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the
code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I
also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the
written test.

Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing
Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and
accumulated knowledge.

Excellent point and very true to the general situation.

They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it.
Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and
conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply
that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their
own tests.

Some infer that they were ALWAYS knowledgeable experts. :-)

They were NEVER "dumb" and Their Tests were of the highest,
most difficult professional standards possible. yawn


I still don't understand why there is so much bitching
(from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about
the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that?

When we do attempt to discuss something else, for some reason or
another, it gets redirected to the Morse code issue.

NPRM 05-143 is the hottest POLICY topic for United States
amateur radio right now. It is concerned solely on the
elimination or retention of the morse code test for any
class amateur radio license examination. It is NOT
concerned with changing any of the written test elements.

In case you're wondering, THIS newsgroup was originally
created JUST FOR the code test issue, years ago when
rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous filled up too much with
code test discussions/arguments/flaming.

Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35:07 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:


Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then?

I still find this whole thing another thinly designed bandwidth grab,
when in reality is that the system concept is not working. Seems like
grass is greener stuff to me, unless there is something majik about 700
MHz, and the TV channels.


We heard the same mazurka about the 800 MHz channels ten years ago.
Even amongst those clients of ours who went for 800 MHz systems,
some of those actually work well as a regional public safety
intercommunication system when designed and used correctly.

Right! I haven't heard enough of his plan to make a judgement, but why
don't we just make this grand schem work there?



One of the major pronlems that seems to surface every time in every
field is "turf wars" a.k.a. "protect my local interests".

States rights too? A lot of the places that have a lot of the potential
for disaster don't take to kindly to the evil Federal guvmint meddling
in their affairs.

Notwithstanding the extortionate user fees paid to the agency who
holds the actual license, the only ones who really profited from
that exercise was Motorola. (APCO members on here will certainly
recognize this.)

Enter now 700 MHz stage-left......

These things are so predictable.

1. Disaster happens

We have to blame someone, and since the Democreeps aren't in power
(we'll still blame 'em just for good practice) so we need to find a
scapegoat.

2. AHA! The problem came about because of Television
broadcasters, Those no-goods!

3. I have a plan! Give me money.

4. Thank you, here's your system.

Next disaster please......


5. ......Those darn democrats!



I guess I'm a little cynical today ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:09:31 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote in
:



Frank Gilliland wrote:


Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the
code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I
also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the
written test.

Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing
Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and
accumulated knowledge.

They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it.
Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and
conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply
that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their
own tests.



By "dumbing down" I was referring to the question pool being released
to the public where it can be memorized to some extent. As for the
level of technical expertise, I'm sure the content hasn't changed much
over the years (except maybe for the addition of semiconductors).

That is one interesting feature of modern society. If we are going to
have standardized test- which seems to be gospel anymore, we have to
publish the answers. One of the more amusing side effects of that is
that the pools occasionally have an incorrect answer. Then we'll see it
corrected. I wonder how many testees got credit for a wrong answer, and
vice-versa?


But then again, maybe the technical aspects of the test -should- be
'dumbed down'. Modern ham radios have digital PLL tuners, automatic
antenna matchers, audio signal processing..... I even saw one that had
a built-in Morse code decrypter. About all that's left for the ham to
learn anymore is on-air protocol and antennas. It's no wonder so many
hams are becoming appliance operators. Heck, the FCC would do just as
well to turn the service into several CB bands and drop the license.

The appliance issue *is* a problem IMO, and I think it is incumbent on
the Ham to build things. But that's just me. While I'm not quite up to
designing and building a full featured modern radio, I can and do design
and build stuff around the shack

Of course, I'm not about to give up my modern radio either. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

On 20 Sep 2005 13:00:25 -0700, "
wrote in
.com:

From: Frank Gilliland on Sep 20, 4:09 am

On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, "

snip


Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy
is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY.

Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the
International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23),
satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including
Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for
a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13).

"IN USE," Frank. :-)

I do not find any reference to manual morse code radiotelegraphy
in Part 22, Public Mobile Radio Service. "Codes" are stated,
but those are NOT "morse codes."


Sec. 22.313(c): "Station identification must be transmitted by
telephony using the English language or by telegraphy using the
international Morse code....."


Part 23, International Fixed Public Radio Service, does have
reference to manual morse code (International variety, same as
defined for amateur radio) IF and only IF the transmitter license
is specifically designated as "radiotelegraph" with that emission.


It's used for both radiotelegraph stations -and- radiotelephone
stations (Sec. 23.37(d)(i) & (iii), respectively).


I do not find any specific reference to manual morse code in
Part 25, Satellite Communications Radio Service. Where is the
requirement for a commercial radiotelegrapher license there?


Morse code is used for ATIS so the receiver doesn't have to be
automated like the transmitter.


Note: Satellite Communications allocated bands are all in the
microwave region and that is highly unlikely to be used with
manual on-off keying of a transmitter.


I did mention that a communication requires both a sender -AND- a
receiver, did I not?


Part 13 defines ALL the Commercial Radio Operator licenses and
is not a radio service per se. Radiotelegraph (Commercial)
licenses require specific skill levels tested for each of three
classes. Radiotelephone (Commercial) and GMDSS operator
licenses do NOT require manual morse code skill testing.


Nevertheless, what you are suggesting is that a radiotelegraph
operator's certificate is usable only on the ham bands. It isn't.
Morse is used in maritime and other commercial radio services.


Yes, there are automatic morse code keyers in use in various
radio services still, such as in Aviation Radio Service, about
as many as there were such stations a half century ago. As such
they are satisfying very OLD regulatory requirements and have all
the usefulness of teats on a boar hog. Those keep on working
because they are simple repetitive appliances to a transmitter,
no different (but less complex) than a "fox test" generator for
TTY. Pilots of aircraft don't "identify" VOR radionavigation
transmitters by morse code in normal use, they simply dial up
the channel as shown on their aeronautical charts and the ground
station is either there or not there; frequency/channel
assignments have been done to prevent interference with other
ground radionavigation frequencies/channels even at the extreme
distances possible with high altitude flying.

I wrote "IN USE" in all captitals on purpose. Where, other
than on the Great Lakes in maritime service, is morse code USED
for communications in the United States?


I take it you don't have a scanner. If you did, and listened to many
of the VHF PSP freqs you would occassionally hear a brief automated
station ID in Morse, as required by law. It's also used quite a bit in
maritime service since Morse has developed into a universal language.

The point is that Morse -IS USED- in other services besides Amateur
radio. That's a fact, and it's sufficient to fulfill your request.


I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a
receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required-
to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication
-can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both)
should the automatic systems fail.

The ORIGINAL morse code was all numbers and "recorded" by an
ink pen on paper. No hearing was required. Morse's financial
backer, Alfred Vail, is said to have suggested the addition of
letters and punctuation plus making shorter code characters
in line with printers' type case arrangements.

The early WIRED telegraph systems primarily used MANUAL
transmission and reception. Very long distance services, such
as by undersea cable, used recorded transmission and reception
primarily to increase throughput, allowing brief breaks for
operators to answer more important calls of nature.

Punched paper tape was in use for TTY by 1904. That year
marks the first recorded instance of demonstration of an
Exclusive-OR "scrambling" of one clear-text message with a
"keying" tape (duplicate at the receiving end) for
encryption by non-crypto-specialist operators. P-tape has
been standard on TTY and RTTY message communications for
well over a half century. It is quick, convenient, and one
TTY operator could tend a dozen P-tape TTY machines in
continuous duty. Electromechanical teleprinters are on
the way to extinction, replaced by better, faster all-
electronic message means.


Thanks for the history lesson. But my point was that learning Morse
isn't always for the purpose of tapping out a message on the key. Any
message sent by Morse, automated or not, has to be understood by the
receiver of the message. Since Morse decryption technology is decades
behind automated Morse-sending gadetry, it is well advised for anyone
intending to receive such a message to learn the code -regardless- of
whether he ever intends to send one.


The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio.

It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal.

Doubtful.

It WILL eventually become terminal. The last mighty macho
morseman will have the last morse code key pried out of
cold, dead fingers. It will wind up as exhibits in a
museum, those exhibits already in progress.

Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio
communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it
was invented for -wire- telegraphy.

I've been reminding folks of that for years. 1844 is the year
the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system went into operation.
COMMERCIAL (i.e., professional, service for money) I might add.

It has also been used extensively
with optical and other types of communication.

Not "extensively" except in maritime talk-between-ships by
light blinker.


Ground-pounders have used Morse code for decades -- that's why there's
a momentary pushbutton on so many flashlights.


Signal flags are traditional in navies but
those are not "morse code." Two-flag (two-torch at night)
manual semaphore was used in the U.S. Army prior to our
Civil War; the torch over crossed signal flags is still the
collar insignia of the Army Signal Corps. However, that was
NOT by "morse code" but by position of the semaphore
indicators relative to the operator's body to denote the
various characters.

Various forms of semaphore signaling, even to construction of
networks for same, was done for over a century PRIOR to the
first wired telegraphy systems. NONE of those used "morse
code" anywhere close to what morse code is today.


Thanks for the second history lesson. But who suggested semaphore was
the same as Morse code?


Native American Indian smoke signals did NOT use "morse code."


Again, who suggested any such thing?


The electronic "remote control" generally uses a pulse train
code to control a variety of electronics using infra-red
"carrier" or an RF carrier. That is by on-off keying but
such keying has NEVER used any "morse code." On-off keying
of a carrier is a supply-economic for battery-powered remotes.


.......and this is going where?


It has existed since
before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of
radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for
radio.

"Morse code" predated the first demonstration of radio as a
communications medium by 52 years of USE.

There are NO working morse code telegraph circuits in the
United States in continuous communications service. NONE.
It has been an internal practice in commercial communications
to denote teleprinter services as "telegraph" for over a half
century, leading some to presume that such "telegraph" services
still "use morse code modes." They do not.


No argument. What's your point? That Morse code needs to have
commercial sponsorship to exist?


But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue
to use it.

Yes, and riding horses is still done in equestrian pursuits
(but not as an everyday transport),


I think the Amish would disagree with you, as would a lot of country
folk here in the West.


smoothbore musketry and
bows-arrows are still used for hunting (but not as a regular
means of killing game), and parks still have real steam train
rides (but not for regular passenger conveyance). Until the
electronic terminals became economic, the electromechanical
teleprinter systems carried the vast majority of message
communications for over a half century...for telegrams, for
government, military, business, commerce, and private
communications.

Some hobbyists still insist on using vacuum tube circuitry
for low-power (relatively speaking) uses in radio, despite
the proven fact that solid-state circuit design results in
lower power demand, smaller physical size, more economy,
and generally superior performance.


Yet fire and the wheel are still quite popular. Go figure.


Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the
code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I
also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the
written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching
(from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about
the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that?

On the contrary, the common PCTA expression is that the Pool
of published questions has "dumbed down" amateur radio license
examinations to an absurd level. [Pools exist for both VEC
and COLEM]


I haven't seen this year's COLEM question pool. Got a link?


They illogically connect dropping of the code test
with "dropping of the written test" by direct statement or by
infrerence.


I have done no such thing. Maybe you missed my position the first six
times I stated it -- I really don't care about the code test. The only
reason I defend it is because it's so much easier to learn the code
and pass the test than to bitch and moan about it year after year
after year.


They also forget that the VEC Question Pool
Committee devises ALL the Pool questions and answers, said VEC
being composed of licensed radio amateurs. The FCC now
specifies only a minimum number of questions per test element,
does not differentiate to minimum number per kind of question.
There has been a virtual enormous quantity of bitching/moaning
about the allegedly "dumbed-down" written test elements, some
bitching/moaning at a vitriolic level.


All I read in this newsgroup is bitching and moaning (from both sides)
about the code requirement. In which newsgroup is all the bitching and
moaning about the written test occuring?


The current hot topic in United States amateur radio policy
is NPRM 05-143 on the elimination/retention of the morse code
test. That NPRM does NOT state that written test elements
will be changed. Focus, please.


I changed the focus. There are plenty of other threads that focus on
your preferred topic. If you don't like the topic that I have chosen
to address then don't reply.


If you wish to Petition the FCC to change this alleged "dumb-
down" issue, feel free. The FCC even explains the procedure
for Petitioning in their regulations, Title 47 Code of Federal
Regulations. Meanwhile, contact the VEC QPC for changes to
the present-day multiple-choice public question-answer Pool.


I'm familiar with the petition process, thanks. And likewise, if you
don't like any discussion of the written test requirements (which I
believe falls within the category of 'policy') then feel free to
petition the appropriate authority.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

wrote:
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 16, 4:47 pm

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

See what we mean? He just can't stay on subject. Always brings in Morse
code "Morsemen", same same all the time. Then he gets into his
"Military career". Predictable as a Sun set.

Right, so what is the point, eh?

I can't think of a one actually Mike.

Little pointy heads aren't good for thinking.




Len, Len, Len, why must you antagonize those of lower intelligence?

Just because the express purpose of RRAP is to dis-cuss Morse Code
Policy is no reason to actually dis-cuss Morse Code Policy. Get with
it, OM!

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:19
" wrote in
From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am

The only point where I differ is that I'm personally convinced that
abolition of the Morse test would have been carried in the ITU in 1993 if
it could only have got to the floor. Those who delayed it did so precisely
because they knew that.

That's a typical tactic, found at any large conclave/conference.

The ITU is one country one vote, so the US is no
more influential there than Monaco or Luxembourg.

Only when it comes to the VOTE ITSELF. It's fairly obvious that
the larger-population countries have larger delegates (and the
'guests' who are not supposed to have any voting power). With
more people in a delegation, the more people there are to meet
with other delegations away from the assembly and do one-on-one
salesmanship for "their side."

Then you have the many months prior to a WRC where the delegates
have been largely identified on the ITU listings (plus their
hotels/lodgings per delegation identified) so that "salesmanship"
can be applied.

The major "salesmanship" effort is on OTHER radio matters, of
course, and - contrary to specific-interest-on-ham-radio groups -
is of a greater international importance in radio regulations.

The IARU as a collective body is larger than the ARRL and their
opinion-influence on the voting delegates is stronger than the
ARRL's influence.

The ARRL began the IARU and the IARU permanent headquarters is at
Newington.

Kind of like the Radio League of Nations!

Most IARU member societies are very, very small. They don't
have many members and they don't have much money. The IARU HQ
frequently donates money so that third world delegates may attend.

Kind of like the League of Nations!

In the past, one of these was Cassandra Davies 9L1YL, President of SLARS
(Sierra Leone Amateur Radio Society), also a licensing official at SLET,
the Sierra Leonian PTT. Many SLARS members were non-Sierra Leonian.
Average meeting attendance was between fifteen to twenty radio amateurs.

Kind of like the Marianas Amateur Radio Club, MARC. Ask Jim about it
sometime.

In Botswana, no natives of Botswana were BARS members.

Oh, my! Sounds elitist.

There were no
indigenous radio amateurs in Botswana despite yearly BARS classes in
theory, regs and morse.

Oh, my! Sounds like institutionalized SOMETHING.

Most licensees were German, British, Indian,
South African or American resident citizens.

Hmmm? Them license classes must not have been very effective.

Guinea-Bissau had no resident radio amateurs much of the time. During
my two years in Bissau, there was a Swedish op, Bengt Lundgren J52BLU in
country for about four months. There was a DXpedition to the Bijagos
Islands by an Italian group which lasted a matter of days. For the
balance of my tour, I was the only licensed radio amateur in the country.

I wasn't the only licensed amateur in Korea, Guam, nor Somalia.

When the IARU came out against amateur radio
licensing code testing a year prior to WRC-03, that sent a
"message" (in effect) to other administrations' delegates, a
"set-up" for the future voting. The IARU had not yet been of a
consensus on S25 modernization the decade before WRC-03.

It wasn't much of a message for most African countries delegates.

Too busy cashing in on the foreign aid packages, probably.

One problem of American radio amateurs is that they do NOT, as
a general rule, look any further than American ham radio
magazines for "news."

You state that as a fact. It can only be an assumption on your part.
The internet has made it very easy for radio amateurs to find other
sources for news.

Excellent point! Please point me to the newsletter of the SLARS.
Please!

While the ITU has a number of easily-
downloadable files on regulatory information, most of it is
available only to "members" on a subscription basis (members
would be "recognized" administration delegations or delegates).

So, Joe Average Ham wouldn't be likely to subscribe in order to obtain
the material.

And SLARS members? They receive them via 1st class mail?

They don't much bother with the FCC freely-available information
even though the FCC is their government's radio regulatory
agency.

There's another assumption on your part.

Hmmmm? There's a trend in your claiming that Len assumes too much.

News that does get down to the individual-licensee
level is thus rather "filtered" by intermediate parties.

Filtered how, Len? Do you mean that only information of interest to
radio amateurs is published, as a rule, in amateur radio magazines? Why
would it be otherwise?

Nuts and Volts used to publish some amatuer material.

The Mother Earth News used to publish amateur mateiral.

Now most of it comes via just a few mouthpeices.

That
makes it very easy for them to NOT spend time looking for news
elsewhere and they get to play with their radios longer. :-)

Do commercial ops and governmental ops have the same problem? Do they
waste time and isn't it easy for them to cut down on the time they have
to play with their radios? :-)

What? No trade mags for the pros?

It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on
many without them realizing what is happening.

I had a feeling that we'd get down to your intimating that there's some
conspiracy to keep radio amateurs in the dark.

Dave K8MN

No conspiracy. Most choose to be in the dark.

Frank Gilliland wrote:

Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio
communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it
was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively
with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since
before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of
radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for
radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue
to use it.

Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the
code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I
also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the
written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching
(from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about
the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that?

Frank, I thought that you weren't a ham?