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

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether or
not
there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.


Well, that's the wrong question.


The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for
access
to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is no
need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize
distress
calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that qualification need
has long since disappeared, then so has the need for the qualification
test.


Hans,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such laughable
reductio ad absurdum arguments.

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only reason
such
qualifications were kept in the rules all these years. There are lots
more.

Assuming you are referencing the myriad of reasons put forth
during 98-143...all of which fell short of FCC buy-in, just what else
is there

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

N2EY wrote:


The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it. Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".
And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband? Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140? Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years. The FCC
realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.




































jgjyujklo;fgd

Robert Casey wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.

It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.

I think it all comes down to complaints, too.

Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".

That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

(similar to the above anticodetest argument - and just as incomplete).

And who hasn't, by mistake, operate the wrong mode in some subband?

Me. I've *never* done that. Not by mistake, not intentionally either.

Like
answering a foreign phone CQ on 7140?

Not even once.

Oops... Most people will not make
a habit of doing that, but once or twice over the years.

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

The FCC realizes that
errors do happen, and that most people will realize the error and
correct it themselves
without the FCC having to do anything about it.

That's why we have OOs. The OO program was instituted so that hams
would find out about such problem from each other rather than FCC.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 4 Dec 2003 09:26:52 -0800, N2EY wrote:

Mistakes happen. But when you read the FCC enforcement letters, it
becomes clear that mistakes, particularly technical ones, aren't
really much of a problem anymore in the ARS.

Technical mistakes were, and I would guess still are, handled by
less formal warnings (a phone call or an Advisory Notice rather than
a Notice of Violation or a Notice of Apparent Liability to
Forfeiture, for instance) at least the first time around.

Whatever works.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

N2EY wrote:

Robert Casey wrote in message ...


N2EY wrote:



The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment of
amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters, such
interference today seems to be more a case of intentional modification of
amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on nonamateur frequencies.



It seems that you have to violate rules "on purpose" several times
before the FCC
starts working on it.



I think it all comes down to complaints, too.



Modern equipment rarely causes problems (like
excessive
splatter or harmonics). I'm talking about stuff from the major
manufacturers
(Yeacomwood), not the "freeband" "linayes".



That's very true.

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and
it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing. At least be able
to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and
such. Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their
equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to modify his
radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could. It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker. I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

And it raises the question of "why should hams have to know all sorts
of theory stuff when the original reason for that knowledge is largely
gone"

Well, the FCC allows us to build and modify equipment for use on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Sure.

Just like how the FCC allows us to send and receive Morse code on the ham
bands, and it would be a good idea if we know what we are doing.

Neither the use of Morse code nor the construction/modification of equipment is
mandatory. Many hams enjoy amateur radio without doing either.

At least be able to recognize
things like wrong frequency (like out of band), severe harmonics,
splatter, TVI, and such.

Sure.

Just like being at least be able to recognize most of the 43 symbols of the
Morse Code when sent at the very slow speed of 5 wpm.

Cell phone users don't have licenses, but they're not allowed to
modify their equipment either. Same for CBers. A CBer isn't supposed to
modify his radio to
operate on 10m, but a ham could.

Yet they often do just that.

It becomes a "ham radio set" and no
longer a "CB set".
If and when the FCC says "no homebrewing or modifying, off the shelf
'type accepted'
rigs only, then the theory requirement gets weaker.

Usually such modifications require the high level of technical skill required
to cut the blue wire or crush diode D17....

And such modifications are not mandatory at all. Most hams today use certified
equipment, do they not?

Which is more common on the amateur HF bands: hams using homebrew/seriously
modified equipment, or hams using Morse code?

Do you really think the written exams adequately test whether a ham can build
or modify amateur radio equipment - particularly considering the wide range of
bands, modes and technologies usable by hams?

I doubt the FCC
would ever do
that, as one of our reasons for existing is to encourage learning about
radio and
electronics.

IMHO they've been gradually watering down the theory tests for over 25 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY