Thanks, Mike - my responses are in the text below.


....whole lotta snippage goin' on.....

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:49:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a
decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted
one post - mine.

Yup, I remember that one well! Wonder why that happens....this thread
went a bit farther, but keeps branching out into other topics, with
the requisite bashings of the participants.


It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure
hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing.
Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever
emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means
they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO.

Good point - the ability to use the hobby for community service is
pretty unique to amateur radio. (try that with R/C model planes, or
Civil War re-enactment!.....).

The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as
those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean
out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a
purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as
each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite
operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing.

I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the
same thing as the core.

....the only difference is that the written testing consists of a
question or so on satelite operation - Morse continues as a complete
syllabus and test in its own right. I'm not convinced that it is
quite that important anymore to warrant this.

I do see your point, though - we'll have to 'agree to disagree', I
suppose...(a rare achievement in this newsgroup 8*p )


Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or
QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment
originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and
commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering
with their signals, and order them to stop.

This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed
to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few
methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out
of the picture. So what's left?

Here's the way I understand this one:

Agree that there most certainly was a time when CW was all that was
available to amateur operators (and was heavily used for commercial
radio as well as landline operations too).

Then, if an amateur were to be allowed to go on the air with no code
training, what would the impact to amateur radio be? You would have a
guy sending signals out that no one could understand, or answer. A
very frustrated operator, most likely - but no real damage to the
service itself. However, if that guy was interfering with commercial
or governmental traffic, and did not know enough code to understand
their signals to clear off the band immediately, major problems would
be possible. Multiply this by the number of amateurs playing around
with radio, and it would be a huge problem. CW proficiency testing
pior to licence issuance would be a big step towards preventing
situations like this one.

Now, with virtually no one using code except amateurs, and all of that
strictly within the amateur bands, this problem seems to be a thing of
the past. Just like a guy who sets up an improperly-functioning RTTY
setup (like I jusy did, a couple of nights ago...) - no major problem
- and no two way communications, either



A secondary purpose may
have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur
stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 -
unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW
should assume the same status as the other available operating modes -
permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by
practical examination.

My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to
the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a
logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single
arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary
requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF.
There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and
fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer
quantifiable - but no hard reasons.

you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to
keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions.

Agree, to a point. There don't seem to be any logical reasons to keep
CW testing (I was hoping that this thread would flesh them out...).
OTOH, there is a reason to discontinue CW testing - the reason being
that CW is (for all practical purposes) no longer any more important
than any other available operating mode, today, in 2003. As such, is
it fair to compel people to learn and pass a practical test on one
mode in deference to all others? I don't see it!


Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!

Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about
satellite operations!!!! 8^)

Don't know - I think that's one of the ones I got wrong anyway....


The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me
of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive
schools" where the student made up their own curriculum

Likewise, if the school board decided that "The Adz, Plane , Bow Saw
And Other Pioneer Tools" was to become a seperate mandatory subject,
which must be studied and passed prior to gaining a trade
certification in Carpentry - that would be equally wrong. It is
interesting to some (and at one time, the only way to build a log
cabin), but not relevant enough to be given its own course today.
Still, there are those who enjoy building with these types of tools -
more power to 'em!


Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a
hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as
hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal
stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only
the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of
giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for
are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's
a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies.

You're right - for me, at least so far, it is only a hobby . Since I'm
relatively new to the avocation (a year and a half, so far), I'm still
in learning mode - I am interested in getting involved with ARES, and
may do so in the next few months or so, time permitting.

BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of
patience! Wow!


I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking,
technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills
to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and
security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions
regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch
of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency
testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do
so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit.

But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward
thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand
why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the
removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide
that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is
beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator
between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to
do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators.

Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have
a calculator?

But there is a technolgical reason in continuing to teach longhand
division - and that is, without knowing how it works, how will you
know when the calculators' answer is incorrect? (My kids have
demonstrated this concept to me many times.....they tend to believe
whatever answer the thing displays, without applying logic to see if
they entered something wrong - grrr) And for that reason, I think
that the current level of testing that we do to become an amateur is
not enough - as I have explained in previous threads, the level of
technical knowledge has dropped considerably over time. Longhand is
the check-and-balance for the answer presented by the calculator.

I don't quite see the analogy to CW, though - sure, if SSB
communications are not possible CW could be used to get through. But
the rest of the world is moving away from it (first the commercial and
government users, and now amateur administrations all over the world)
- I'd suggest that if there was any value to retaining it even as a
back-up mode of communications, it would have been retained by
someone.

I'd think, anyway.


- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo