Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:

Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, wrote:

yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards

This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get
personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an
individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I
sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething
hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands.

NT

If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out
your license callsign?

Probably because it's not safe to go waving around more information than you
have to.

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oreg...sp?item=194639
Dispute On CB Airwaves Leads To Fatal Shooting

Yes, the non-CB amateur bands tend to be a little more mature than the
citizens band (or at least as far as the
Washington/Clark/Multnomah/Clackamas County area is concerned).
Unfortunately, Usenet and the Internet are not. If you don't believe me,
go watch Dateline when they sting Internet weirdos sometime to see the
worst of them.

--
Baloo
email & xmpp:


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

wrote:
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.

My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

It IS the Code.

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

Telegraph.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.

ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.

Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Actually Len, almost all amateur radio operation has
been outmoded by advancing technology which has made
amateur radio first to be redundant and later to be
obsolete. I'm still using the same modes for amateur
radio that I used more than half a century ago.

That is true in essence for all those who "work DX on HF
with CW." :-)

Some will point to modern techniques in radio (DDS, PLL
frequency control, solid-state PAs that need no tuning
controls, etc.) as being advancements. Trouble is, those
advancements came from the designers-manufacturers,
advancements to capture market share of ham consumer
electronics. Using only on-off keying with a state-of-the-
art transceiver seems a waste of available resources in
that equipment.

My daughter lives in New York state. 50 years ago,
I would have tried to talk her into getting a ham
license. Today, Sprint cellphones allow the two of
us to communicate any time, day or night, for free.

One in three Americans has a cell phone now
according to the US Census Bureau. Each cell
phone is basically a little two-way radio.

No "CW" test is needed to use a cell phone. :-)

I just completed an exchange of files (including hi-
resolution photographs) this morning with another
in Europe. Took only a few minutes. The Internet
stretches over most of the globe, is unaffected by any
ionospheric variation. Those files couldn't be
exchanged via "CW" on HF. [maybe the "phase
shift" impairs such information transfer...:-) ]

No "CW" test is needed to use the Internet. :-)

But, in 2006 the FCC regulations still require any radio
amateur to test for "CW" in order to operate on bands
below 30 MHz. None of the other radio services
require that. shrug

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things."

Heh. But, in here, coders are the only ones with "facts." Anything
a no-coder says is "wrong," "in error" and other endearments. :-)

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

It IS the Code.

True enough. But...the coders HAVE their rank-status-
privileges and seem to enjoy looking down on no-coders.
All must do as they did or be called "wrong" or "in error."

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

Telegraph.

Early radio was just a telegraph system without poles and
wires between stations. Mythical tales have turned early radio
into something greater than rocket science.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.

ABOVE 30 mhz? Hmmmm?

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

Ah, yes, the Great 500 KHz "Experiment." AS IF the 500 KHz
region hasn't ALREADY had 80 years plus of determining
whether or not it works for communications! :-)

Good old League, leading all "Back to the Future." :-)

That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago.

Then why are we: http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/26/101/?nc=1

It's about the same as those who love to Re-Enact the
American Civil War or the American Revolutionary War.
Play-acting at "pioneering" over 8 decades after that
frequency region was picked for the first maritime distress
and safety reserved frequency.

The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.

Ore even to move us into the future... Leadership.

"Ore" from a mine. The pro-coders say "I've got mine, nya-nya."

It's getting to be "Back to the Future, Part Infinity" if things
like the Great 500 KHz Experiment is a sign of things to
come from the "representative of all amateurs" in Newington.

Their other "Experiment" is a "contest" to see who can best
come up with a whole ham station for LESS than $50 in new
part costs. Whoever "wins" that gets a really hefty prize of
$100 cash and Publication in QST! Oh, and it is 40 meters
only, but "allows" SSB voice to be included. :-)

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Barry OGrady wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote:

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote:


Or just lazy people out?

Sc

It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about
learning it, either.

More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement
was removed years ago?

Yes. In the USA at least.

Since the inception of the no-code Technician class here in 1991,
the growth of the Technician class license numbers in the USA
has been continuous. Those now comprise about 49 % of ALL
licensees. The Technician class license numbers are twice that
of General class, the next-largest license class.

Since the "reconstruction" in FCC amateur radio regulations of
2001, the number of licensees grew to peak in July, 2003. At
that time the maximum code test rate was fixed at 5 WPM, all
classes.

A problem now is the attrition of the older licensees. More old-
timers are leaving/expiring (their licenses) than are being
replaced by new (never before licensed in amateur radio)
licensees. Source: www.hamdata.com. That trend has
persisted for three years.

The code test is not THE factor causing it, just one of the
major factors in slowing the increase of new licensees.
Coupled with the stubborn resistance to change of ANY
regulations by olde-tymers, there is little incentive to enter
olde-tyme amateur radio. Ally that with the huge growth of
the Internet in the 15 years it has been public - an Internet
that has spread worldwide with near-instant communications
over that world - and the traditional standards and practices
of olde-tyme ham radio just don't have the appeal to
newcomers they once had.

Elimination of the code test for any license will cause a
spurt in new licensees. While such elimination is not a
guarantee to far-future growth, it will be the significant act
to being CHANGING regulations to better fit the modern times.
Keeping up with changing times is a NECESSITY in
regulations, regardless of the personal desires of the minority
of amateurs making up the olde-tyme group.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard. In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine? Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE. Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

What is wrong with live and let live?

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?

Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?



Whewww. That was a gassy one.

SC

Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly:

Whewww. That was a gassy one.

We don't need to hear about your sex life.

Ping [email protected]
 

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Jimmie the "Historian" of Personal Computing
 

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

Is that where you obtained yours?

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.

You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews
are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and
some factual errors.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the
past five or six years.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Why the smiley? Was that a joke?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

No smiley here?

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to
the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities
in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of
the early 1990's.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed.

Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len?
If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems
to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers?

And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

There's a big difference between designing or building and using
minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have
plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS
systems. Now what?

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

Now what?

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web")...

Would you like additional time to rethink your statement?

...nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any
time, Len?

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any
nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see
anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours?

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences
with you.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards.
How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive?

Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a
case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added
a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the
monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day.

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE.

Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this
talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE
member to assemble a computer or use it?

Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche.

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should
stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back
together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself.


What is wrong with live and let live?

You've been allowed to live.

Dave K8MN

Accuracy, Facts and Opinions
 

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis.

You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
information you left out disproves your conclusions.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"

I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you
do not know. That seems to really bother you.
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like.

I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup.

You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is
flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter
"i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express
such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your
mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact.

You know everything, yes?

Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that
you do not know. That seems to really bother you.

you are a code-tested amateur extra.

There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently."

In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years.

The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well
over $1000.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

That's relatively recently, Len.

Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were
even 8 years ago.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation
adjusted"?

You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy?

"2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was
considered obsolete long before 1990.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market.

And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs.

Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in
their capabilities.

The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display,
network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software
available for it was limited and expensive.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC?

It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and
what they could do.

Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts?

Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than
$100. In many cases, for no money at all.

My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts
from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach
the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out.

It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw
away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class
machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS
is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It
is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers
that cost more than $2500 new.

Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

But *you* haven't done it. I have.

It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago,
approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand
dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content
available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That
sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy."

Sure they do, Len.

They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the
tests and you haven't earned the license.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

I don't claim to be.

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe?

Because you got the facts wrong, Len.

Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs
used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do.

If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of
that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch?

I've assembled several from components.

No?

Yes.

I have.

That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems
from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal"
and "computer"

Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me.

That's nice, Len.

Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead.

But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're
going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions.

Ping [email protected]
 

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

Ping [email protected]
 

On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Ping
 

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so
having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving.

Interesting, because AR offers more than just communication.

SC

Barry

I know the comment about people leaving Amateur radio isn't Barrys comment,
but thought I'd address it anyway. I was 69 when I got my Tech license and
72 by the time I made myself pass the code test and got my General. A lot of
the avid pro-morse Hams are even older than I am. I know of no one locally
who has just quit the hobby and those senior to me are not leaving
on their own at all, when they do stop Hammin' it's 'cause their keys went
silent. I never used code after passing the test. I've got the thought in
the back of my mind that I may sometime
pursue a little CW, but it all depends on when I get my own SK notice.

Harold
KD3SAK

Ping
 

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve

no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm

the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson

Jim, N2EY

Ping
 

Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more? I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world. Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

Ping
 

Opus- wrote:
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

I hope it was a good one.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but
that's not exactly a compliment.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more?

Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is
that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'.

It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word
is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly
the same, but similar.

I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

Like many things, "it depends".

The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster.

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this:

"VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY,
november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine,
five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's
Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha.
Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....."

while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be:

"VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP
JIM JIM BT HW?...."

Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are
reasonably fast, the time is comparable.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications
experiences.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs.
listening to a recording.

Either way, it's still a different experience.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams
with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack,
where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can
be the difference between operating and not operating.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then
it's really not worth pursuing".

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air
doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite!

One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack
Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated
offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not
'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but
spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black
eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him.
The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is
going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine
($21,000US, IIRC).

Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it
was you.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect
that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the
extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level
increase with the number of children in school.

Is public education a government handout to people with several
children?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy.

Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would
say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction.

I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social
engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax
deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting.

Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world.

Really? Who is #1 - Sweden?

Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

One person's handout is another's entitlement.

One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most
Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives.
Some never collect a penny, because they die young.

But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough,
they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the
system - including reasonable interest.

Is that a "handout"?

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

(sigh)

For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom
rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a
full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a
typical suburban lot of less than an acre....

It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the
place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas
needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task.

So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the
area...

But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Ping
 

From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:


But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.



With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.


Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will
WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding
country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.



Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.


Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.


However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.

Ping
 

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.
realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a
sad frequency

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.
realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a
sad frequency


Well then Mark, do you think, just for a second, that possibly, just maybe,
that it could be YOU that brings out the best in everyone?

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake
up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does
NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you
explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to
it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams
will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun
mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a
good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its
day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long
befor the licence expires.


That's what happens when something gets dumbed down. It cheapens it, and
people find no value in maintaining or continuing with it.

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Is the no-code license letting really stupid people into ham radio?
 

"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.
realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a
sad frequency



Yes.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired
sooner. Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of
years, long befor the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first
place. Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.
BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that
would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or
you could tell me

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote:

And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll
never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just
eliminate the theory exam, too.

and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when
eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look
stpuid obviously we gain by that

Look stupid? Oh, excuse me!
yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards


There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the
theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we
really need a theory exam for?
you tell me

I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the
term and the rules involved in the ARS

don't you think it does that?

Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists
have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on
the air and start operating without any trouble at all.

and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif
it was found to be to our benifit

They feel they
shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may
be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why
not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't
others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions
about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I
have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station
operation?

Now allow me to put on the "other hat".

pput on such hats as you please

CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history.

agreed
One has to
embrace the past to realize where one is today.
that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past
or to real;ize where we are today
Having said that, CW
is not an obsolete mode by any means;

it is obslete
it is timeless. It was a viable
communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still
be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now.

which does not prevent it from being oselte

the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to
come

it is none the less obeslete
It's spectrum efficient
and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens
to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation
and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies.

and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance
on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that
wish to use it
It's just
too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects
badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a
long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue.

what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some
thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be
better off leting it go the way of Spark

Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the
testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one
would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely
obtuse.
and insulting
What amateur radio needs is BALANCE.

which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE
mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does
today
It needs operators with
a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other
radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the
service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the
highest bidder.

My $.02 Draw your own conclusions.
my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like
to achive your end

for that matter so will I

- - . . . . . . - -

NT
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some day.
The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer is
competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not
interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of
spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when all
equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot proofed
gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has failed. You think
you have something idiot proof and then guess what, someone makes a better
idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of theory going away. As far a
CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams have today they had to show they
were a national asset. Part of being that asset was our ability to process
emergency traffic should the need arrive. At the time CW was needed to
accomplish this. It is no longer needed to meet our obligation of service.
OF course this begs the question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I
believe we can, but are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other
technologies, it would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an
idea I dont think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm
on a keyboard.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so
stpupid

The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that
computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW
requirement.

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
"Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM
for all such tests happened only 6 years ago.

The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just
3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K
per year ever since]

I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above.

When I ask technical people about why they haven't
acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement
as a response.

Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio-
electronics for over a half century, I DO know some
"technical people." :-)

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it
possible to communicate. Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the
face of modern telecommunications.

PART of that IS true. NOT all of it.

What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF
and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy.
Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT
professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum
that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun
of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz.
That can be a very different RF environment, much much
different than the technology available in the 20s and
30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Let's face it.. the romance is gone.

Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes,
it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz
has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what
the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state
era came into being about 45 years ago and has
revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that).

Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the
analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver,
GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is
the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not-
knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and
ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable
item that can be found by a computer program). Except
for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE
for nearly everything but high-power transmitters.

The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of
1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing,
advancing, the state of the art never static. For the
stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they
feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become
aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space
cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their
youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get
the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so
they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR
level...the code test MUST stay..."because."

There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA
alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the
cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF
transceivers in the USA, working daily for public
safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as
well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands
of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being
everyone from government agencies to private boat
owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is
the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that
all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes.

But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a
helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We
can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we
can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person
romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the
imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there.
This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't
be legislated into remaining static. The rules and
regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW.




Total agreement here, our obligation of service to to earn our privlegdes
doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Total agreement here, our obligation of service to earn our privlegdes
doesnt end with what we have done but with what we have done lately.

The "service" provided by the Amateur Radio Service
is a service provided *by* the federal government
*to* the citizens who meet the amateur radio licensing
requirements. There is no governmental requirement or
obligation that amateur radio operators render any public
service at all. Amateur radio licensees are not even
required to own a radio.

"Service", in this context, is just an administrative
division of government.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.

BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that
would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or
you could tell me

I passed the Novice exam in Nov 1986. 5WPM. I'm presently a General,
so I'm fully qualified to work out of band Frenchmen on 6M or on HF.
Maybe they'll even put me in for the ARRL's A-1 Operator Club.

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"an_odd_freak" wrote in
ups.com:


wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:
an_old_friend wrote:

But if you and Markie ever get full HF privledges, God & Hiram Help
us.

Why? Do you fear us working out of band Frenchmen? We could do that
just as well on 6 Meters.
BB I belieeve you have mentioned passing a code test at some point that
would allow you fullaccess to hf today I could look up your license or
you could tell me



The FCC still has the old CB calls in a database?

SC

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:27:33 -0500, Nada Tapu
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote:

And you probably answered some theory questions about modes you'll
never use and formulas you'll never see again. Maybe we should just
eliminate the theory exam, too.

and what do we gain by doing that it is certainly an option when
eleimate code testing we eleimate something that makes the ARS look
stpuid obviously we gain by that

Look stupid? Oh, excuse me!
yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards


There are a lot of people who don't want to be bothered with the
theory exam, either. And when it comes right down to it, what do we
really need a theory exam for?
you tell me

I think it benifits the ARS by insuring that new hams reconize the
term and the rules involved in the ARS

don't you think it does that?

Most CB'ers and electronic hobbyists
have the technical expertise to put a multi-band rig and antenna on
the air and start operating without any trouble at all.

and many so Indeed we could despense with the technical question sif
it was found to be to our benifit

They feel they
shouldn't need to take a test in order to do that, and a good case may
be made in favor of that approach. Homebrew and experiment? Sure, why
not? They can do that too. I did when I was on CB, so why can't
others? Why should I take a test that includes superflous questions
about operating modes and aspects of electronics and computers that I
have absolutely no intention of employing in my day to day station
operation?

Now allow me to put on the "other hat".

pput on such hats as you please

CW is a part of amateur radio's heritage and history.

agreed
One has to
embrace the past to realize where one is today.
that is merely one method but one is not required to emabrace the past
or to real;ize where we are today
Having said that, CW
is not an obsolete mode by any means;

it is obslete
it is timeless. It was a viable
communications mode 50 years ago, it still is today, and it will still
be perfectly viable 10,000 years from now.

which does not prevent it from being oselte

the Longbow it is still a vaible weapon today will be for some time to
come

it is none the less obeslete
It's spectrum efficient
and highly effective under adverse conditions. So what if it happens
to be dated? There is absolutlely nothing wrong with the preservation
and continued use of old but perfectly good technologies.

and I don't object to YOU doing so but I do object to your insistance
on public specturm being used to do as a complution on all those that
wish to use it
It's just
too bad if some operators feel that a certain operating mode reflects
badly on the amateur community solely because it's been around for a
long time. There is nothing "stupid" about this issue.

what is stupid is this insistance that I must help to preserve some
thing that YOU value and wish preserved and that I think we would be
better off leting it go the way of Spark

Am I supporting the elimination of the theory exam and promoting the
testing of morse skills? Of course not, although I can see how one
would reach that conclusion from my statements. I'm being purposely
obtuse.
and insulting
What amateur radio needs is BALANCE.

which it will lack as long as the ARS insist on worshiping the ONE
mode CW above the rest of the ARS combined as the leicense system does
today
It needs operators with
a rich set of skills and traits that will set it apart from the other
radio services. When those skills and traits cease to exist, the
service will perish, and eventually the spectrum will be sold to the
highest bidder.

My $.02 Draw your own conclusions.
my conclusion is that you will twist truth and logic anyway you like
to achive your end

for that matter so will I

- - . . . . . . - -

NT
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Indeed we could dispense with much of the technical qualifications some
day. The technical part is basically an attempt to make sure the amatuer
is competent enough to operate their equipment in a maner that does not
interfere with other services outside of his designated allocation of
spectrum, in other words, within FCC regulations. At such a time when
all equipment is made idiot proof and all hams use store bought idiot
proofed gear we may see this.So far the one experiment at this has
failed. You think you have something idiot proof and then guess what,
someone makes a better idiot. So I am not worried about requirement of
theory going away. As far a CW is concerned to gain the privledges hams
have today they had to show they were a national asset. Part of being
that asset was our ability to process emergency traffic should the need
arrive. At the time CW was needed to accomplish this. It is no longer
needed to meet our obligation of service. OF course this begs the
question, can we fullfil our obligation. To this I believe we can, but
are we really needed. CW has been replaced by other technologies, it
would make more sense to require typing skills than CW, an idea I dont
think is so bad even though I may have trouble with twenty wpm on a
keyboard.


If CW has been replaced by other technologies, why aren't more amateurs
doing the modernized modes? It's because they don't want too. Ham radio
has been dumbed down and we can't even force hams to use them to be
proficient communicators.

CW isn't preventing the modernization of ham radio, Laziness is.

SC