"George Orwell" wrote in message
...
Al Klein said:

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.

Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby.
What use is the code requirements?
I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing
around looking at ham and talking to
an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me.

But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for
time, what good does all the licensing
and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing
something new and fun?


If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the
government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun. The section
on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite
different. They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are
interested in expanding that knowledge.


I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field
everyday, the last thing I want to do,
is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less
stringent requirements were there, I could
easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and
start working with a ham setup. I'm
particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer
connections.

I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my own
(heck, that's what I'm doing in
the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for
archaic rules, regulations and codes
that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out
busy people that might like to
participate.


Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide
variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations,
knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Notice
that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who
have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Note that
the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them
and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age.

As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given in
the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you use
your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are.

Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age
they serve?


Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing
through it and decide what should be tested and what should not.

Here's why I think code should still be tested:
1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio. For example,
one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal
experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a robust
digital mode.
2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since
it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They will
falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them to
learn it gets them over that resistance hump.
3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us
that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in
those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those strengths
and weaknesses are.

If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is
the best mode. However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't
clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been
repeated many times by many people already.

Dee, N8UZE

LenAnderson, You have obviously made an INVESTMENT in your technical profession.
Make one in your participation in the radio service!!

Amateur Radio is a SERVICE!!! If you only think of it as a hobby your thinking
is flawed.

/s/ Dave, BSEE, Program Chief Engineer-retired, LGM-118A(RS), MK21/W87

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Peacekeeper/Peacekeeper_Missile_Home_Page.htm

- - -

Woody wrote:

Who's gonna see a single want ad in 300 postings about nothing?

Seinfeld ran for eight years and it was all about nothing. People
cried at the end.

Who wants to pilfer 300 postings about nothing to find a sale ad?
On the Somalia thing,
Do you mean extremists/terrorists that claim to follow Islam, or just basic
Islamists?

Here's one:

""Somali Islamist gunmen undergo military training
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx...ticleid=281612

{EXCERPT} Mail & Guardian Online, South Africa Somalia's dominant
Islamic movement on Tuesday launched intensive military training for
hundreds of its gunmen under a plan to create instruments of
statehood......""

It looks like you mean the former.

Please understand that Al Qaeda is a group of terrorists/extremists, it
doesn't matter what religion they
claim to follow.

rb

Here's another:

""SOMALIA, THE BLACK HOLE OF ANARCHY

BY AHMED Q. BURSALIID

In mid July 2005 The U.S. intelligence agents, working with local
warlords, have carried out counter terrorist operations to seize
sus*pects. "Somalia remains the theatre for a shadowy
confrontation involving local Ji*hadis, foreign Al Qaeda operatives
and in*telligence services from a number of re*gional and
Western countries," says a report by the International Crisis Group
in 2005. The report says the "dirty war be*tween terrorists and
counter-terrorist oper*atives in Mogadishu appears to have
en*tered a new and more vicious stage that threatens to push the
country further towards Jihadism and extremist violence un*less its
root causes are properly addressed."

The Somali transitional federal government was formed in neighbouring
Kenya in 2004 and moved into Somalia June 2005. However, the
administration has failed to relocate to Mogadishu, the Somali capital,
because the city was considered unsafe. Due to the insecurity of
Mogadishu, the TFG relocated to Jawhar, which it later decided to move
to Baidoa.

Warlords and leaders of Islamic courts have been fighting in Mogadishu
for about five months. This led to the loss of hundreds of civilians
and
destruction of properties. Somalia, which had been in a state of
anarchy
for more than a decade, has once again gone to war; this war was
somehow
different from previous ones. The nature of this war is seen to have
some religious and political clash while previous ones were much
related
to tribal and feudal conflicts. Each one of the conflicting parties is
claiming that the other group is related to Al-Qaeda when the reality
is
somehow different from that. After months of armed conflicts within the
capital city of Somalia, Union of Islamic Courts took the lead with
enormous points by eliminating the warlords who took hostage the
country
and its people for 16 years.



United States of America, which earlier denied any allegation of
helping
or giving hand to the warlords in the fight to weed out the Islamic
Militia in Somalia shortly after the takeover admitted that it had been
supporting warlords to destabilise the Islamic militia. America has
been
an active player in the politics of Somalia, and until now its policy
towards restoring peace and stability in the war -torn Somalia is
somehow obscure.



Somalis believe that it is the right time to take advantage to restore
the lost hope of good governance in the country as Union of Islamic
Courts led by Sheikh Sharif imposed law and order on Mogadishu, which
was seen neither for 16 years. Hundreds of families from overseas
countries returned back to Mogadishu, the capital city of Somalia since
the takeover took place.



At first Transitional Federal Government welcomed the political change,
which took place in Mogadishu as the Union of Islamic Courts disarmed a
pack of US-backed warlords that took the country and its people hostage
for more than a decade. But soon after the Islamic Militia started to
capture some other cities, the TFG warned the Union of Islamic Courts
of
capturing farther cities. A big gap of political misunderstanding came
in between the Transitional Federal Government and the Union of Islamic
Courts, after the president of fragile Transitional Federal Government
requested peacekeeping forces from the African Union. As the new Somali
constitution inked in Kenya says, "Peacekeeping forces should not
come from the neighbouring countries (Ethiopia, Kenya and
Djibouti)". Likewise, the parliament passed a motion, which it was
requesting peacekeeping troops to Somalia without paying attention to
the classification of peacekeeping forces from AU countries and of
front
line countries. This has created an escalation of political crisis in
Somalia. Ethiopia, which is the common enemy of Somalia has sent its
troops to Somalia in an attempt to protect the Transitional Federal
Government.



This time, Arab League took the political platform of Somalia to
mediate
the two conflicting parties. TFG and UIC were invited to attend a
mediation conference held on June 2006 in Sudan to settle their
differences. After a reconciliation conference, presided over by
Sudanese president Omar Hassan Albashir, the current chairman of Arab
League, the reconciliation process derailed with unknown reasons but it
is believed that Ethiopia was the main figure, which made the
reconciliation process fail as the outcome of the meeting could not
meet
the criteria of Ethiopia's plan to Somalia and then, President
Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, a well-known pro-Ethiopian warlord and his loyal
prime minister Ali Mohamed Gedi, a vet scientist started to advocate
the
legality of Ethiopian Army presence in Somalia.



The Somalis are of the opinion that the involvement of Ethiopian Army
in
the peacekeeping operations in Somalia could cause havoc and
deterioration of the political condition of the country in any case as
Ethiopia is an old aged enemy of Somalia in East Africa. While a vast
majority of the Somali public strongly opposed to deployment of
Ethiopian troop into Somalia under any pretext, president Yusuf's
political stance towards the deployment of Ethiopian troops in Somalia
is clear and also in action by denying the presence of Ethiopian troops
in Somalia just to protect his presidential seat.

Since the reconciliation conference in Sudan derailed a number of
ministers resigned due to the political misunderstanding between TFG
and
UIC. Prime minister declared that he would be nominating successors of
the resigned 24 ministers. In addition to that, the prime minister
himself survived after the Somali parliament passed a motion of no
confidence against him recently.



Moreover, Prime minister of Ethiopia Milez zanawi whose government
earlier denied any presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia told BBC
that
his government has sent troops to Somalia to protect the Transitional
Federal Government from the Union of Islamic Courts. While on the other
hand, Eritrea is also believed to be an active supporter for the Union
of Islamic Courts. Somalis believe that the support from both Ethiopia
and Eritrea respectively is much related to a proxy war in between
them.
US government warned Ethiopia and Eritrea stop the proxy war they are
playing in the Somali territory.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]""

Lloyd 4 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:18:12 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote:

Al Klein said:


Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.

Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby. What use is the code requirements?
I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing around looking at ham and talking to
an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me.



As long a 'Rare DX' uses CW, CW will live and thrive in the DX community.

A DX pile of 100 stations on CW occupies much less bandwidth than 1 SSB station.
The CW contact rate exceeds the SSB rate.

As long a 'Rare DX' uses CW, CW will live and thrive in the DX community.

It's your choice: if you want to play the DX game learn the rules including 25
wpm CW.

If you want to operate an appliance, but an appliance.

Dee Flint wrote:
"George Orwell" wrote in message
...
Al Klein said:

Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide
variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations,
knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Notice
that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who
have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Note that
the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them
and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age.
stop lying
all the officers of NCI have passed the requirement they support doing
away with

From: Dave on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:38 pm

LenAnderson, You have obviously made an INVESTMENT in your
technical profession.

Yes, I have. Not only has it been intellectually rewarding,
it was also monetarily rewarding...for the last 54 years.

Make one in your participation in the radio service!!

Kiss my yes, "Dave," I've "participated" in numerous radio
SERVICES of USA civil radio and in DoD contract work from
below LF to Ku-Band. In these previous 54 years I've
communicated from land, from the air, from the ocean
surface...even once "worked" a station ON the moon. Never
once in 53 years was I EVER required to either use or know
on-off-keying manual radiotelegraphy.

Amateur Radio is a SERVICE!!! If you only think of it as a hobby your thinking
is flawed.

"Dave," you are SO FLAWED that you can't think straight.
Here's the real story:

Go to the FULL Title 47, C.F.R., and LOOK at ALL the radio
SERVICES. The word "service" used in Title 47 is a
regulatory term denoting a type and kind of radio activity
being regulated under a Part. Go write the FCC if you
don't believe that. But, you won't believe that since you
are obviously stuck in some kind of "patriotic" pipe-dream
where you think a HOBBY activity is some kind of "national
service."

Look in Part 95, the Personal Radio SERVICES. In there you
will find the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE and the Radio-
Control Radio SERVICE. Those are all SERVICES, "Dave."

There is NOTHING wrong with having a HOBBY. It's a fine
hobby in fact. What is wrong, seriously wrong, with your
(observable) thinking is that US amateur radio is some
kind of quasi-military "national need" that is somehow
"important to the national welfare." It isn't. Amateur
radio is about as "vital to the nation" as CB or some
model airplane flyers on one of the 72 MHz channels.

Yes, HAMS get neat certificates from the federal government
(suitable for framing) and like to go around saying "they
are 'authorized' by the feds" as if that were some Nobel-
laureate accomplishment. It isn't. The FCC is tasked with
regulating and mitigating ALL United States civil radio.
Since amateur radio transmitters emit RF that requires the
FCC to regulate it. The FCC, or rather its predecessors
(before 1934), decided that licensing was a way of doing
that regulation. To get that license required taking a
test. That TEST was never, ever any sort of academic
achievement thing (FCC was never chartered to be an
academic institution), just something to satisfy the FCC
that a license applicant was sufficiently knowledgeable to
get that license. Note: Satisfed the FCC...not the ARRL,
NOT the nebulous "ham community" or even any "Hams in da
Hood."

Have you got that straight yet, "Dave?" Did you take some
kind of oath of "service" on getting your amateur license?
Raise the right hand and repeat after whoever was prompting
you on the oath? No? I didn't think so.

I took a REAL oath on 13 March 1952, "Dave," entering the
United States Army. A Real SERVICE, "Dave." I did my "eight"
and got an Honorable Discharge. From February 1953 to end of
January 1956 I worked HF comms in Big Time radio. You can
even download a photo essay of that from this link:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

It's 6 MB and will take about 19 minutes download over a POTS
dial-up connection. If you look closely at those 20 pages
you won't find a single thing about "working CW" (on-off-keying
manual telegraphy) yet the whole station ran 24/7 pushing about
220K messages a month. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to send that
many (some of which were encrypted) by manual telegraphy unless
the signal battalion was doubled. It didn't have to be because
the messages got through and on-time. That was 53 to 51 years
ago, "Dave."

What do you think the military uses NOW for communications?
Data, "Dave," Data. High-speed data, "Dave," not some dinky
1200 baud amateur stuff. DIGITAL. Digital can be on-line
encrypted and on-line decrypted securely.

You show me where the REAL Services use manual radiotelegraphy,
"Dave." They don't. It is voice and/or data, most of it in
the field done DIGITALLY.

/s/ Dave, BSEE, Program Chief Engineer-retired, LGM-118A(RS), MK21/W87

WTF, "Dave?" So, you tacked on a bunch of undescribed acronym
things supposedly project numbers or IDs. Are we to be
"impressed?" I'm not. I've worked alongside and for PhDs who
didn't bother with IMAGE and all that rank-status-title BS...
WE got the job done, working together.

Amateur radio MIGHT get something done working together. But,
you olde-tymers won't. You have to RULE, holding fast to the
traditions of 50 to 70 years ago...because YOU and all the
olde-tymers had to do it so everyone else has to...and all
you olde-tymer morsemen think that "CW" is somehow "best."
It isn't "best." If you really have a BSEE instead of just
PR BS about morsemanship, you would realize that.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Peacekeeper/Peacekeeper...

"Dave," amateur radio isn't about missles. Save your energy
for donating DVDs of "Strategic Air Command" (starring Jimmy
Stewart) to give to impressionable youngsters.

I've been in the smoke-and-fire trade of rocket engines for a
little while (Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International).
Trust me, rocket engines do NOT use manual radiotelegraphy.
BTW, SAC is GONE, "Dave." A whole reorganization in the USAF
some time ago. No more "oil burner routes" or flying out to
loiter near the USSR (the USSR is gone, too). BTW, there
were SSB transmitters emitting 12 KHz wide RF long before
SAC got the single-channel SSB stuff to use on such
loitering. I know, having to keep a few of those REAL SSB
transmitters running correctly.

Now, "Dave," I can't fault on-off-keying CW any. The key
fob for our 2005 Malibu MAXX uses that. Yes, the last
vestige of high-speed CW (REAL CW) done digitally. Done
by the hundreds of thousands all over the country daily.
Nearly all of them operated by unlicensed NON-MORSE-TESTED
civilians! That Chebbie got in our garage courtesy of
"investments," "Dave." Investments in REAL work, not
playing like big-time 1930s radio ops "jobs" of a long-
past age by AMATEURS.

Beep, beep,


Life Member, IEEE

"Woody" wrote in news:NrXIg.2771$N84.1234@trnddc08:

If you'll check the address bar when you reply, you might notice that
you're posting in a swap group, scanner group, policy group, and
antenna group.... IOW, you're just as guilty as the rest of us. :-)

Yep, I only very rarely set followups.



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

From: Dee Flint on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:25 pm
Email: "Dee Flint"
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner


"George Orwell" wrote in message
Al Klein said:

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.

Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby.
What use is the code requirements?
I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing
around looking at ham and talking to
an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me.

But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for
time, what good does all the licensing
and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing
something new and fun?

If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the
government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun.

Dee, the "rules that govern amateur radio" are the ENTIRETY
of Title 47 C.F.R. I don't care that the ARRL pushes ONLY
Part 97. Part 1 has plenty about amateur radio as well as
a few other Parts. Look it up. It's free at the US Government
Printing Office website.

The section
on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite
different.

The "objectives" of the FCC are to regulate and mitigate ALL
civil radio in the USA, Dee. That's what the Communications
Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 chartered
them to do (plus quite a bit on wireline comms...which don't
apply to amateur radio).

The "Basis and Purpose" has a lot of POLITICAL boilerplate
in it, just like most of the other Parts for other radio
SERVICES. Get real.

They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are
interested in expanding that knowledge.

The FCC is mainly interested in all radio services' users
FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS, Dee. That's their job. The
FCC doesn't "want" people a certain way, only to FOLLOW
THE REGULATIONS.


I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field
everyday, the last thing I want to do,
is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less
stringent requirements were there, I could
easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and
start working with a ham setup. I'm
particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer
connections.

"George," you've got a whole bunch in this forum who think
that amateur radio is some kind of veddy formal "JOB" with
absolutes on THE WAY THEY DO IT. It's almost draconian in
the insistence of "correct proceedure." No one will get
fired from that "job" if they don't use "correct" ways but
the way they blabber on you'd think they were "supervisors."

I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my own
(heck, that's what I'm doing in
the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for
archaic rules, regulations and codes
that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out
busy people that might like to
participate.

Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide
variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations,
knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements.

Horsepuckey. Dee, "George" is talking about GETTING INTO
amateur radio. Don't give us this olde-tymer morseperson
"I've operated all the modes there are" stuff. Dee, I've
operated lots more modes on radio than YOU are allowed to
as an amateur.

Manual morse code ability IS an ARCHAIC mode of communications
Dee. ALL the other US radio services have either dropped it
for comms or never bothered with it in the first place. ALL.
The ARRL and the olde-tyme morsepersons insist that the manual
morse test "MUST" remain to "show something" about commitment
and dedication. To WHOM, Dee? To YOU? To da Hams in da hood?

Notice
that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who
have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age.

Dee, before you get to the downright-bitchy stage, may I remind
you that some of us professionals in radio and electronics
NEVER BOTHERED WITH AN AMATEUR RADIO TEST? I got my First 'Phone
in 1956. Considerably more testing involved than a ham license
test then. Could YOU get a GROL now? Could YOU get a job
working with radio hardware?

Note that
the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them
and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age.

Yes, nine-year-old Extras possess the maturity and wisdom of
the ages, all through having taken that morse test and gotten
that magic certificate (suitable for framing).

As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given in
the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you use
your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are.

Dee, you are LECTURING again. [just how long have you been
in ANY radio?]

Dee, go look at some 1990 documents on the creation of the
no-code-test Technician license. There's a copy available for
free download on the NCI website. Over 16 years ago the FCC
said outright that it didn't think the manual morse code test
suited their purpose in granting an amateur radio license.
The FCC said the same thing in last year's NPRM.

I DO have to remind you that the FCC's only job is to REGULATE
all civil radio in the USA. Their only task is to do that and
mitigate matters of interference with other radio services
(plus wireline but that's not concerning amateurs). Theirs
is not to brainwash hams...that's the ARRL's task.


Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age
they serve?

[stand by for the LITANY from the Church of St. Hiram]

Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing
through it and decide what should be tested and what should not.

Ahem, to olde-tyme morsepersons, manual morse code skill MUST
be tested for any radio privileges below 30 MHz. That's
engraved in everlasting marble and protected by nuclear-blast
armor plate.

Here's why I think code should still be tested:
1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio.

Horsepucky. It was only the first mode used...had to be
in the primitive-technology of early radio using "spark."
Spark is outlawed now, Dee.

For example,
one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal
experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a robust
digital mode.

More sinning-by-omission, Dee. Peter Martinez, G3PLX, innovated
PSK31. Using the available Information Theory rules he knew
about, derived from commercial and military technology. It was
field-tested for years in Europe by many amateurs there before
it got any publicity over here. "Hot" is over a decade OLD,
Dee. In 1974 Peter was doing great things with polyphase
networks for voice SSB...it was written up in RSGB's member-
ship magazine. I doubt the ARRL bothered with publicizing it.

2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since
it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They will
falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them to
learn it gets them over that resistance hump.

So...morsemanship really IS a barrier. You admit it.

3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us
that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in
those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those strengths
and weaknesses are.

Oh my, there we go on the lecture circuit again.

Dee, I started out working as an Illustrator. That's an artist
who draws/paints things as they really are. I have an aptitude
for that. It is as natural to me to draw, fairly well I might
add, as a physically-endowed athlete is to sports or another
with a musical aptitude is to playing an instrument. The ability
to "advance" in manual morse code skill is NOT a "natural" one
but an aptitude in only a few of us. The US military even
tested for that aptitude in all recruits of the 1940s and
1950s. [I got okay marks in that, by the way...:-) ]

The first radio operators used manual morse code. First, it was
fine for the primitive state of the art. Second, it was a mature
mode in the wireline communications, a technology even more
primitive than radio of that time. Telegraphers weren't taken
off the street...they either had the aptitude or they didn't.
Once "radio" got going, the telegraphers (downsized from
wireline comms by those new-fangled teleprinter thingies) made
much of their "abilities" using on-off-keying manual morse. The
Morse Mythos was born and grew like wildfire. Good, good
newsprint copy!

But, as time progressed there came NEW modes, much faster and
more accurate, without need of morse specialists at each end
of a circuit. The radio telegraphers were downsized. They
retired and turned to amateur radio of pre-WW2 times. Morse
was still king of the modes and ARRL (by the 1930s) was
hailing the king as the "best" for all amateurs. None of
this newfangled thing called "voice" for them although they
did pay lip-service to it. By 1940 the ARRL was King of
the membership organizations (through their publications)
and they maintained that morsemanship was the epitome of
amateur comms. They kept that up after WW2 and on into the
single-channel SSB start in the 1950s...again paying lip-
service to this newfangled SSB. And you know what? ARRL
is STILL trying to promote morsemanship even if sinning-by
omission once more.

Back before WRC-03 (that's over three years ago) the IARU
took a position that the amateur radio license tests for
morse ability was NOT mandatory...make it an option for each
administration. Lots of folks went along with that, but NOT
the ARRL. League was almost vehement in opposition. OK,
the ITU-R amateur radio regulations were CHANGED, going along
the lines of the IARU position. [that's the International
Amateur Radio Union, Dee] Ah, but NOW the ARRL takes a
neutral position, won't go either way...they just say that
all amateurs must obey the law...but they lobbied last year
to keep SOME manual morse testing for the under-30-MHz
privileges. 92 years after being formed, the ARRL just can't
give up and change to what OTHER folks want...

If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is
the best mode.

"X-Files" was cancelled, Dee. [cousin Gillian got a vacation]

However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't
clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been
repeated many times by many people already.

Please, go on, Dee. I want to hear from your vast experience
in radio and all your guru-like knowledge of what is "best"
for radio amateurs. Especially WHY everyone has to emulate
the olde-tyme amateur days, the ones before you were born.

Beep, beep,


Life Member, IEEE

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Dave on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:38 pm

LenAnderson, You have obviously made an INVESTMENT in your
technical profession.

Yes, I have. Not only has it been intellectually rewarding,
it was also monetarily rewarding...for the last 54 years.

Make one in your participation in the radio service!!

Kiss my yes, "Dave," I've "participated" in numerous radio
SERVICES of USA civil radio and in DoD contract work from
below LF to Ku-Band. In these previous 54 years I've
communicated from land, from the air, from the ocean
surface...even once "worked" a station ON the moon. Never
once in 53 years was I EVER required to either use or know
on-off-keying manual radiotelegraphy.

Amateur Radio is a SERVICE!!! If you only think of it as a hobby your
thinking
is flawed.

"Dave," you are SO FLAWED that you can't think straight.
Here's the real story:

Go to the FULL Title 47, C.F.R., and LOOK at ALL the radio
SERVICES. The word "service" used in Title 47 is a
regulatory term denoting a type and kind of radio activity
being regulated under a Part. Go write the FCC if you
don't believe that. But, you won't believe that since you
are obviously stuck in some kind of "patriotic" pipe-dream
where you think a HOBBY activity is some kind of "national
service."

Look in Part 95, the Personal Radio SERVICES. In there you
will find the Citizens Band Radio SERVICE and the Radio-
Control Radio SERVICE. Those are all SERVICES, "Dave."

There is NOTHING wrong with having a HOBBY. It's a fine
hobby in fact. What is wrong, seriously wrong, with your
(observable) thinking is that US amateur radio is some
kind of quasi-military "national need" that is somehow
"important to the national welfare." It isn't. Amateur
radio is about as "vital to the nation" as CB or some
model airplane flyers on one of the 72 MHz channels.

Yes, HAMS get neat certificates from the federal government
(suitable for framing) and like to go around saying "they
are 'authorized' by the feds" as if that were some Nobel-
laureate accomplishment. It isn't. The FCC is tasked with
regulating and mitigating ALL United States civil radio.
Since amateur radio transmitters emit RF that requires the
FCC to regulate it. The FCC, or rather its predecessors
(before 1934), decided that licensing was a way of doing
that regulation. To get that license required taking a
test. That TEST was never, ever any sort of academic
achievement thing (FCC was never chartered to be an
academic institution), just something to satisfy the FCC
that a license applicant was sufficiently knowledgeable to
get that license. Note: Satisfed the FCC...not the ARRL,
NOT the nebulous "ham community" or even any "Hams in da
Hood."

Have you got that straight yet, "Dave?" Did you take some
kind of oath of "service" on getting your amateur license?
Raise the right hand and repeat after whoever was prompting
you on the oath? No? I didn't think so.

I took a REAL oath on 13 March 1952, "Dave," entering the
United States Army. A Real SERVICE, "Dave." I did my "eight"
and got an Honorable Discharge. From February 1953 to end of
January 1956 I worked HF comms in Big Time radio. You can
even download a photo essay of that from this link:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

It's 6 MB and will take about 19 minutes download over a POTS
dial-up connection. If you look closely at those 20 pages
you won't find a single thing about "working CW" (on-off-keying
manual telegraphy) yet the whole station ran 24/7 pushing about
220K messages a month. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to send that
many (some of which were encrypted) by manual telegraphy unless
the signal battalion was doubled. It didn't have to be because
the messages got through and on-time. That was 53 to 51 years
ago, "Dave."

What do you think the military uses NOW for communications?
Data, "Dave," Data. High-speed data, "Dave," not some dinky
1200 baud amateur stuff. DIGITAL. Digital can be on-line
encrypted and on-line decrypted securely.

You show me where the REAL Services use manual radiotelegraphy,
"Dave." They don't. It is voice and/or data, most of it in
the field done DIGITALLY.

/s/ Dave, BSEE, Program Chief Engineer-retired, LGM-118A(RS), MK21/W87

WTF, "Dave?" So, you tacked on a bunch of undescribed acronym
things supposedly project numbers or IDs. Are we to be
"impressed?" I'm not. I've worked alongside and for PhDs who
didn't bother with IMAGE and all that rank-status-title BS...
WE got the job done, working together.

Amateur radio MIGHT get something done working together. But,
you olde-tymers won't. You have to RULE, holding fast to the
traditions of 50 to 70 years ago...because YOU and all the
olde-tymers had to do it so everyone else has to...and all
you olde-tymer morsemen think that "CW" is somehow "best."
It isn't "best." If you really have a BSEE instead of just
PR BS about morsemanship, you would realize that.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Peacekeeper/Peacekeeper...

"Dave," amateur radio isn't about missles. Save your energy
for donating DVDs of "Strategic Air Command" (starring Jimmy
Stewart) to give to impressionable youngsters.

I've been in the smoke-and-fire trade of rocket engines for a
little while (Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International).
Trust me, rocket engines do NOT use manual radiotelegraphy.
BTW, SAC is GONE, "Dave." A whole reorganization in the USAF
some time ago. No more "oil burner routes" or flying out to
loiter near the USSR (the USSR is gone, too). BTW, there
were SSB transmitters emitting 12 KHz wide RF long before
SAC got the single-channel SSB stuff to use on such
loitering. I know, having to keep a few of those REAL SSB
transmitters running correctly.

Now, "Dave," I can't fault on-off-keying CW any. The key
fob for our 2005 Malibu MAXX uses that. Yes, the last
vestige of high-speed CW (REAL CW) done digitally. Done
by the hundreds of thousands all over the country daily.
Nearly all of them operated by unlicensed NON-MORSE-TESTED
civilians! That Chebbie got in our garage courtesy of
"investments," "Dave." Investments in REAL work, not
playing like big-time 1930s radio ops "jobs" of a long-
past age by AMATEURS.

Beep, beep,


Life Member, IEEE


Oh, my. Lennie is pontificating yet again.
Bragging. Reminding us, The Great Unwashed, of his deeds of electronic
daring-do.
Listen up, gents and Gentiles, as Lenny regales us with his words of wisdom
and his off-beat Mississippi brand of home-spun humor. Good to see he is
doing so over his own name this time rather than over the callsign of
another.
YAWN!

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Dee Flint on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:25 pm
Email: "Dee Flint"
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner


"George Orwell" wrote in message
Al Klein said:

Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would
expect you to be able to understand that.

Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the
hobby.
What use is the code requirements?
I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing
around looking at ham and talking to
an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me.

But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for
time, what good does all the licensing
and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing
something new and fun?

If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the
government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun.

Dee, the "rules that govern amateur radio" are the ENTIRETY
of Title 47 C.F.R. I don't care that the ARRL pushes ONLY
Part 97. Part 1 has plenty about amateur radio as well as
a few other Parts. Look it up. It's free at the US Government
Printing Office website.

The section
on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite
different.

The "objectives" of the FCC are to regulate and mitigate ALL
civil radio in the USA, Dee. That's what the Communications
Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 chartered
them to do (plus quite a bit on wireline comms...which don't
apply to amateur radio).

The "Basis and Purpose" has a lot of POLITICAL boilerplate
in it, just like most of the other Parts for other radio
SERVICES. Get real.

They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are
interested in expanding that knowledge.

The FCC is mainly interested in all radio services' users
FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS, Dee. That's their job. The
FCC doesn't "want" people a certain way, only to FOLLOW
THE REGULATIONS.


I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field
everyday, the last thing I want to do,
is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less
stringent requirements were there, I could
easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and
start working with a ham setup. I'm
particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer
connections.

"George," you've got a whole bunch in this forum who think
that amateur radio is some kind of veddy formal "JOB" with
absolutes on THE WAY THEY DO IT. It's almost draconian in
the insistence of "correct proceedure." No one will get
fired from that "job" if they don't use "correct" ways but
the way they blabber on you'd think they were "supervisors."

I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my
own
(heck, that's what I'm doing in
the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for
archaic rules, regulations and codes
that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out
busy people that might like to
participate.

Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide
variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations,
knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements.

Horsepuckey. Dee, "George" is talking about GETTING INTO
amateur radio. Don't give us this olde-tymer morseperson
"I've operated all the modes there are" stuff. Dee, I've
operated lots more modes on radio than YOU are allowed to
as an amateur.

Manual morse code ability IS an ARCHAIC mode of communications
Dee. ALL the other US radio services have either dropped it
for comms or never bothered with it in the first place. ALL.
The ARRL and the olde-tyme morsepersons insist that the manual
morse test "MUST" remain to "show something" about commitment
and dedication. To WHOM, Dee? To YOU? To da Hams in da hood?

Notice
that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who
have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age.

Dee, before you get to the downright-bitchy stage, may I remind
you that some of us professionals in radio and electronics
NEVER BOTHERED WITH AN AMATEUR RADIO TEST? I got my First 'Phone
in 1956. Considerably more testing involved than a ham license
test then. Could YOU get a GROL now? Could YOU get a job
working with radio hardware?

Note that
the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them
and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age.

Yes, nine-year-old Extras possess the maturity and wisdom of
the ages, all through having taken that morse test and gotten
that magic certificate (suitable for framing).

As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given
in
the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you
use
your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are.

Dee, you are LECTURING again. [just how long have you been
in ANY radio?]

Dee, go look at some 1990 documents on the creation of the
no-code-test Technician license. There's a copy available for
free download on the NCI website. Over 16 years ago the FCC
said outright that it didn't think the manual morse code test
suited their purpose in granting an amateur radio license.
The FCC said the same thing in last year's NPRM.

I DO have to remind you that the FCC's only job is to REGULATE
all civil radio in the USA. Their only task is to do that and
mitigate matters of interference with other radio services
(plus wireline but that's not concerning amateurs). Theirs
is not to brainwash hams...that's the ARRL's task.


Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age
they serve?

[stand by for the LITANY from the Church of St. Hiram]

Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing
through it and decide what should be tested and what should not.

Ahem, to olde-tyme morsepersons, manual morse code skill MUST
be tested for any radio privileges below 30 MHz. That's
engraved in everlasting marble and protected by nuclear-blast
armor plate.

Here's why I think code should still be tested:
1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio.

Horsepucky. It was only the first mode used...had to be
in the primitive-technology of early radio using "spark."
Spark is outlawed now, Dee.

For example,
one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal
experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a
robust
digital mode.

More sinning-by-omission, Dee. Peter Martinez, G3PLX, innovated
PSK31. Using the available Information Theory rules he knew
about, derived from commercial and military technology. It was
field-tested for years in Europe by many amateurs there before
it got any publicity over here. "Hot" is over a decade OLD,
Dee. In 1974 Peter was doing great things with polyphase
networks for voice SSB...it was written up in RSGB's member-
ship magazine. I doubt the ARRL bothered with publicizing it.

2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since
it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They
will
falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them
to
learn it gets them over that resistance hump.

So...morsemanship really IS a barrier. You admit it.

3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us
that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in
those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those
strengths
and weaknesses are.

Oh my, there we go on the lecture circuit again.

Dee, I started out working as an Illustrator. That's an artist
who draws/paints things as they really are. I have an aptitude
for that. It is as natural to me to draw, fairly well I might
add, as a physically-endowed athlete is to sports or another
with a musical aptitude is to playing an instrument. The ability
to "advance" in manual morse code skill is NOT a "natural" one
but an aptitude in only a few of us. The US military even
tested for that aptitude in all recruits of the 1940s and
1950s. [I got okay marks in that, by the way...:-) ]

The first radio operators used manual morse code. First, it was
fine for the primitive state of the art. Second, it was a mature
mode in the wireline communications, a technology even more
primitive than radio of that time. Telegraphers weren't taken
off the street...they either had the aptitude or they didn't.
Once "radio" got going, the telegraphers (downsized from
wireline comms by those new-fangled teleprinter thingies) made
much of their "abilities" using on-off-keying manual morse. The
Morse Mythos was born and grew like wildfire. Good, good
newsprint copy!

But, as time progressed there came NEW modes, much faster and
more accurate, without need of morse specialists at each end
of a circuit. The radio telegraphers were downsized. They
retired and turned to amateur radio of pre-WW2 times. Morse
was still king of the modes and ARRL (by the 1930s) was
hailing the king as the "best" for all amateurs. None of
this newfangled thing called "voice" for them although they
did pay lip-service to it. By 1940 the ARRL was King of
the membership organizations (through their publications)
and they maintained that morsemanship was the epitome of
amateur comms. They kept that up after WW2 and on into the
single-channel SSB start in the 1950s...again paying lip-
service to this newfangled SSB. And you know what? ARRL
is STILL trying to promote morsemanship even if sinning-by
omission once more.

Back before WRC-03 (that's over three years ago) the IARU
took a position that the amateur radio license tests for
morse ability was NOT mandatory...make it an option for each
administration. Lots of folks went along with that, but NOT
the ARRL. League was almost vehement in opposition. OK,
the ITU-R amateur radio regulations were CHANGED, going along
the lines of the IARU position. [that's the International
Amateur Radio Union, Dee] Ah, but NOW the ARRL takes a
neutral position, won't go either way...they just say that
all amateurs must obey the law...but they lobbied last year
to keep SOME manual morse testing for the under-30-MHz
privileges. 92 years after being formed, the ARRL just can't
give up and change to what OTHER folks want...

If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is
the best mode.

"X-Files" was cancelled, Dee. [cousin Gillian got a vacation]

However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't
clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been
repeated many times by many people already.

Please, go on, Dee. I want to hear from your vast experience
in radio and all your guru-like knowledge of what is "best"
for radio amateurs. Especially WHY everyone has to emulate
the olde-tyme amateur days, the ones before you were born.

Beep, beep,


Life Member, IEEE


Wow! It took you so long to say so little, Len!
Why not simply toss the "personal experience" gauntlet directly into her
chops and challenge Dee to a battle of the electronic wits at sunrise? I'm
sure it will do wonders for your machismo and, if it makes you feel that you
succeeded in one-upman****, perhaps you can even send her to her corner,
crying for mercy.
Go ahead, Len. Dazzle her with your brilliance and browbeat her if you can.
There...don't you feel better already? Was the relief good for you? Feel
vindicated?