KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A
awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses.


And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license.

And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very
different set up.

A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person
that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once
in a while is not going to be very popular with them.


I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to
renew their current license.

So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year
operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes
of license in the end.



And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting
unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws.


There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we
enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF
frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice
sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we
enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current
200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz?
How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce
the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do
we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard
all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I
quit using the word 'stupid'.)

Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW,
you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the
output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is
simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is)

Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it
is at 3kilowatts?

But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that
have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for
50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hans K0HB wrote:


My proposal would allow them a transition period to do just that.
Then they could continue to renew their no-code General test until
they assumed room temperature.

So we'll have Novice, General, Technician, Extra, Advanced, and Class A
and B. Simplification by complication.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
news
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Alun" wrote in message
...
It just so happens that I don't
like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK
too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to
use
it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and
experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and
saying
they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and
experience
to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as
eloquently as you.

73 de Bert
WA2SI



It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that
they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you
reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I
know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who
haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and
passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same
three categories that do like CW operation.

It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things
in life. Either ya like it or ya don't.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Considering the power levels, the number
of frequencies and bands, the overall
safety considerations, (snip)

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.


No, you just don't like the answer given.

Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"?

Didn't think so.

If anything, I'm ignoring a
fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance
to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below).

Since you keep asking this, do you
have a point to make, Jim?

Yes.

The point is that some folks apply a double
standard when deciding which tests to keep
and which to get rid of.


The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for
all operating modes.
Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either
have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode.

I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use,
like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like
voice and Morse?

There is
no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code.

I disagree. YMMV.

In the end, it's simply an opinion question.

That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements.

Does that mean FCC is always right?

Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers?

As such,
the unique Morse code test should be eliminated.

And perhaps it will be - someday.

Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and
instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written
tests.

Nope.

I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test
can be used against most of the written tests.

But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion
reasons, nothing more.

No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their
contents, serve a valid purpose today.


What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why
is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small
sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses?

None here, including you, have said
otherwise.

I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against
the code test.

The same cannot be said about the Morse code test.

Sure it can. I've done it.

With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion
about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion
cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard
exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your
message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged
trying to make.

You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive
counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the
writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are
*necessary*.

IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were
applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same
as you get for the code test.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
[snip]
The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at
other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always
seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above
even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck"
via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet"
to send and receive morse at slow speeds.


No 5wpm is useful just a tedious for the listener. Learning it to a
higher speed simply makes it easier to communicate and increases the
probability that the person will not forget his/her code over time.

However, using a "cheat sheet" won't even let you go 5wpm as it takes too
long to look up the letters.

So what? The point is that anyone could use a cheat sheet to send
and recieve morse. I never claimed it could be done at 5wpm.
In reality, there is NO minimum code speed required for
on-the-air use of the mode. The test requirement
is only that...a test requirement. If two non-code hams decide to
QSO on 2 meter simplex sometime, there is NO FCC rule
requiring any specific minimum sending speed be used.

I've operated both RTTY and packet and other
digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience
with
them and there simply is no specific skill required.

Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard
at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any
skill level at all, but it is.

In today's world, most people have to learn that skill at a minimmal
anyway
whether or not they wish to be radio Amateurs so do not include that as
something unique to Amateur Radio.

And the converse is true for morse. There is no
longer any international treaty requirement and the FCC has
already stated they see no rational for code testing to be
retained. Ergo... no need for specific amateur testing
of morse for HF licensning...IMHO

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Why is such a written test necessary? The
use of any of those modes is entirely
optional.

Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the
overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when
using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules
associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly
obvious.

No, it isn't.

You're avoiding my question, Dwight.

Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose
use
is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf
cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on
AM,
SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*?

Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and
safety
*necessary*?

BUT none of these other modes has its own separate pass/fail
test. Not any specific subject area either. Miss all the questions
on RTTY and you can still pass the test.

Or consider this:

Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies
above
30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the
successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in
fact,
almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed
to
get a Tech license.

Additiionally, those same techs can use Morse even if
they never passed a morse test.

Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests.
Sure,
the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as
well
as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the
additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*,
since a
Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at
full
authorized power?

I have previously agreed that the alignment of privileges vs license class
makes little sense these days.

Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test?

Sure. Here goes:

Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of
frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who
use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules,
regulations
and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code
exam is clearly obvious.

There you go.

So how come the FCC didn't buy it in 98-143. How come
no-code techs are NOT forbidden from using morse even though
hey never passed a morse test.

By the way..."their exemplary conformance to the rulkes" is a
real stretch since most rule breakers seem to be coded hams
anyway.

Cheers,
Bill

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I
haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it
and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an
end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely
lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur
radio, overall.


I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you
did not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM.
There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot
of HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to
use CW.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered
wiring up a key from time to time, but decided against it.
Shortchanging myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone.
Now, I have met people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with
that. It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I
have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some
reason it bothers you. Why?

No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not
to use it. They have made that decision from a position of
knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person
judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have
that knowledge and experience to draw on.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket
statement that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and
older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's
weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying
more weight than we should.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use
CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't
think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are
what, exactly?

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


KØHB wrote:



On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream
of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other
licensee, just

at

a more modest power level of 50watts.

How are you going to enforce that?


Same way all the other power limits are enforced.

I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running
way
too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities
of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other
hams too.

But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is
detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the
equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50
watts.

- Mike KB3EIA -



It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the
equipment, not vicea versa.

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"Alun" wrote in message
.. .
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com:


And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement
that is laughable.

Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that
people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them.
Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older
but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight
under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight
than we should.

Okay, so now morse code skill makes one "healthy?!?" :-)

Yes, morse code skill is absolutely necessary to get rid of invading
space aliens. [see movie "Independence Day"]

Morse code skill is absolutely necessary to aid the survivors of the
next Titanic sinking or get away from icebergs. [see movie "Titanic"]

Morse code skill is absolutely necessary for ALL emergency and
disaster communications...and that is why all the public safety
folks depend on morse code skill for all their communications
involving life and death situations.

Right.

LHA

"Bert Craig" wrote in
et:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't
have the desire to use the skill.

Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're
already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test
does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a
taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they
wish to persue CW any further.


5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at
that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has
since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC
truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher.

The majority of newbies I've worked sent at approx. 8 to 10-wpm.
(That's right, just below the plateau.) We seem to gravitate to one
another. Ok, the Novice/Tech"+" sub-bands help bring us together. My
point is that those who actually get OTA are putting in more effort
than needed just to pass Element 1. Those who pass Element 1 and wish
to go no further with CW have made a truly educated dicision because
they now have a little "practical" experience with the mode under their
belt on which to base their decision...and are not just simply talking
from their @$$!

Learning the theory of modes you don't want
to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use
phone would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code
test to use phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other
modes is reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another
matter.

As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the
having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and
watch the whining escalate.


Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test.

Also, if
I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some
difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance.

You may have just touched on a selling point for CW.

73 de Bert
WA2SI




Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't
read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all
that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use
it).

73 de Alun, N3KIP